More broadly, while referring to the "rights" of all the litigants, and not only the litigants, whose cases the judge decides, Justice Grunis says things that are valid for all judicial instances, and also for the decision before me in this case (Name, paragraph 8; Highlights added by):
"It seems that there is nothing better than describing the sequence of events in the present case in order to show that the Applicant's various moves do not contribute to streamlining the proceeding, examine the issue from the perspective of all the litigants, but rather make it difficult to manage effectively. At the outset, the applicant petitioned to postpone the date for submitting a reply until after a decision was made on his request to cancel the opening incentive (or to change the proceeding to a regular track). The court granted the request to postpone the date for submitting a reply. Subsequently, the request to cancel the opening incentive was denied. Therefore, the present application was filed for leave to appeal. Some time later, the Applicant petitioned the District Court for an extension of the deadline for submitting a reply to the injunction until after a decision on the application for leave to appeal. This request was rejected by the trial court. As a result, the Applicant petitioned this Court for temporary relief to suspend the action of the decision of the Trial Court, all with the aim of postponing the date for filing a reply to the incentive to incentivize the opening. This request was rejected by me on 9 January 2007. Had it not been for the various steps taken by the Applicant, his response to the incentive to open would have been before the trial court many months ago. I do not ignore the fact that it is possible that the trial court would have decided to cancel the opening incentive (or to transfer it to the regular claim track), after it had before it had the applicant's reply to the incentive of the opening, including preliminary arguments. In such a case, the applicant could have asked, and rightly so, why he needed to submit an answer on its merits, which in retrospect turned out to be unnecessary. However, the court does not need to examine the matter solely from the perspective of the parties in a specific proceeding. The court is responsible for all the litigants and not only for those who are before it in a particular case. From a systemic point of view, which looks forward to the efficient handling of all cases, it is preferable, as a rule, that a response be submitted to the incentive to open. This is one of the reasons I mentioned, even if at the end of the day it turns out that the answer was superfluous. The matter can be presented as a conflict between the interest of the individual litigant, in this case the respondent in the incentive of the opening, and the interests of all the litigants. Those who need the services of the judicial system are interested, as a group, in the proceedings to be conducted efficiently and to reduce the time taken from the time of filing a proceeding to its completion. In this conflict, the court is obligated to give preference to the collective interest of all the litigants, provided that this preference does not cause disproportionate infringement of the right of a particular party. The interest of the individual litigant will be taken into account by way of using the expense instrument. In other words, if it turns out that the same litigant was forced to submit a reply to an injunction even though the proceeding is not suitable for this procedural format, the opposing party will have to indemnify it, regardless of the final results of the action."
- Another decision by Justice Asher Grunis, in a similar vein, was given on October 29, 2006.Civil Appeal Authority 7709/06 Herzliya Municipality N. B.R. Restaurants (Herzliya Pituach) Ltd., [Published in Nevo].
In that case, the District Court allowed the amendment of a statement of claim filed in 2000, and that in 2006, when the amended statement of claim sought to replace 11 pages with an original statement of claim, which was 21 pages long, all after hearing the prosecution witnesses, in the manner in which the case of the claim ended or was about to end.