In the present case, the applicant filed a statement of claim with the Basketball Association's Arbitration Institute, which, according to him, was forced to turn to the Association's arbitration institution and could not act otherwise in order to ensure that the sums were collected. However, when the arbitration award (in the appeal) was rendered, which rejected his claim for payment of the wages, he knew how to file a motion to annul the arbitral award. The Applicant first raised the claim of lack of jurisdiction only in this application, after he participated, being represented by an attorney, and after Arbitrator Kraus and Arbitrator Shimoni conducted an arbitration proceeding in a claim for wages on the merits of the matter, and only after his claim was rejected, did he file the present motion to annul the arbitration award. The Applicant was not prevented from raising a claim of lack of authority before the arbitrator Shimoni, but he did not do so either. Therefore, in our opinion, the Applicant's actions are inconsistent with the principle of good faith, and we accept the Respondent's arguments in this context as well.
It should also be recalled that the plaintiff himself petitioned in his claim that the arbitrator would determine that the agreement was fulfilled "in bad faith" (we assume: "bad faith") and petitioned for compensation in the amount of ILS 100,000 for this component. And if he thought so, then he should have considered, in good faith, his conduct and the use he made of the legal process.
It should not be forgotten that the Applicant filed a "counter-appeal" before Arbitrator Shimoni - but it is clear that he did not "believe", even at this stage, that Arbitrator Shimoni "lacked authority".
Since the counter-appeal referred only to what he did not "win" in the judgment of Arbitrator Kraus, it is clear that the Respondent is correct in its argument that according to the Applicant, only where he is "acquitted" in his arguments - there is authority.