See: Civil Appeal Authority 882/24 Ram Aderet Residences in Tax Appeal et al. v. Prospriti N.S. In a Tax Appeal (2.4.2024), Section 7 of the judgment (Hereinafter: "The Aderet case").
- In accordance with Section 353A of the Companies Law, when the court hears a request to require a company to deposit a guarantee, the default is that the company will be obligated to deposit a guarantee to secure the defendant's expenses.
- Examination of the company's economic capability - according to case law, the burden imposed on the company to prove that it has financial capability - is a high burden (Civil Appeal Authority 237/19 Kochav HaYovel in Tax Appeal v. El-Har Engineering and Construction Ltd., para. 5 (Nevo, January 16, 2019)). In our case, the company attached a statement from the Registrar of Companies and an annual report for 2023. I did not find that these documents are sufficient to meet the burden required by the case law and to exempt plaintiff No. 4 from depositing a guarantee. See what is required: The Aderet case, paragraph 9 of the judgment. The annual report is not audited and is not up-to-date, it is not clear from the report what the company's financial situation is at this time, and it does not establish a sufficient infrastructure as required regarding the plaintiff's financial strength.
- Therefore, the plaintiff did not meet the burden required to prove that she possesses such financial capacity that it would negate the rule in accordance with section 353A of the Companies Law.
- Whether the circumstances of the case justify charging the company with a guarantee - in the motion of defendant 4, it was argued that the chances of the claim are slim. According to the plaintiff, the chances of a lawsuit are very high. In light of my decision in application 4, I am not required to address the parties' arguments regarding dismissal of the claim in limine due to non-payment of fees. The matter was decided and the lawsuit was not dismissed. As to the parties' arguments regarding the causes of action, after examining the parties' arguments and without setting any conclusions in light of the stage at which the proceeding is located, the value of the claim, its complexity, the presentation of the evidence that will be required and the number of defendants, I am not convinced that the chances of the claim are slim. There are significant disputes between the parties regarding the extent of their liability as well as the alleged negligence of each of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs noticed the statement of claim between the various defendants and argued separately regarding each of them. Statements of defense have not yet been filed. The parties must be given their day in court as part of the main proceeding. I did not find that there are reasons that negate the obligation to pay the guarantee. The balance will be at the rate of the guarantee.
- The rate of the charge on bail - the defendant petitioned to charge the plaintiff to deposit a guarantee at the rate of 5% of the value of the relief, as claimed in paragraph 2 of the statement of claim, in the sum of over ILS 22 million, which will not be less than a total of ILS 150,000. The plaintiff petitioned to set the bail rate at a rate not exceeding ILS 5,000.
- In balancing between the interest of defendant 4 to be repaid to the extent that expenses are awarded in her favor and the interest of plaintiff 4 and the right of access to the courts, taking into account the relative share of plaintiff 4 in accordance with the amount of the loan claimed by her, the questions that need to be clarified by the parties' arguments and the other circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the balancing point will be in the deposit of a guarantee, but in a lower amount than requested (see: the Aderet case, paragraph 8 of the judgment).
- Therefore, and after all this, and after examining the parties' arguments regarding the amount of the bail charge, and taking into account the plaintiff's right to access the courts and the considerations that have been detailed, I determine that the bail rate will be ILS 20,000.
- Plaintiff No. 4 served as a guarantee as a condition for the conduct of the proceeding in the sum of ILS 20,000 to secure the expenses of defendant No. 4 - in cash or in an unlimited time and linked to the index, until December 2, 2025 (at the same time as the filing of the amended statement of claim and the payment of the fee for a monetary claim).
- The proceedings in the case will be delayed until the bail is deposited.
- If the guarantee is not deposited on the set date, defendant 4 will be deleted from the letter of claim.
- In light of the result I have reached, and taking into account the amount of the guarantee that was awarded compared to the rate that was requested and the scope of the parties' claims, I do not make an order for costs.
- These decisions were made by the Registrar.
Granted today, November 02, 2025, in the absence of the parties.