The need for the parties' consent to make an amendment to a judgment that is not due to an "error" in its narrow definition In section 81(a) The Courts Law has its origin in the general finality of the hearing, according to which when the court is rehabilitated from its chair, it is not authorized to change the judgment issued by it (see: Civil Appeal Authority 4584/24 Building Conservation Boutique in Appeal Taxes v. M.A.G.N Consulting and Asset Management Ltd., paragraph 16 [Nevo] (10.2.2025); Civil Appeal Authority 2980/18 Euro Money Properties (1995) on appeal Taxes v. Levy Investments and Construction Ltd., paragraph 16 [Nevo] (19.7.2018); Hemi Bin-Nun and Tal Havkin The Civil Appeal 447-449 (3rd ed., 2012) (hereinafter: Bin-Nun and Havkin)).
Since the parties have agreed to waive their right by virtue of the aforesaid rule, and since the legislature has recognized such an agreement as enabling the general finality of the hearing, I see no reason in the purpose of the provision Section 81(b) The Courts Law, or in any relevant context, should limit the authority to amend the judgment only in a situation where the content of the amendment is agreed upon in advance, and not allow the parties to agree to the hearing of the amendment request on its merits and the court's decision thereon, on its merits, even without agreement regarding what is requested in the application.
I will note that I have not lost sight of what is stated in Bin-Nun and Havkin's book, according to which "In order for the court to be authorized to carry out the requested amendment, the consent of all parties is required, both for the amendment itself and for its content." (Name, at p. 449). However, the same statement is based on a reference to a decision made inCivil Appeal 9357/09 The Israel Electric Corporation in the Appeal Taxes v. Amir [Nevo] (March 10, 2010). However, a review of this decision shows that it deals with the date for filing an appeal after a decision was made to amend a judgment under Article 81 to the Courts Law, depending on the question of whether it is a correction of an error according to Section 81(a) of the Courts Law, or as amended by agreement under Section 81(b) of this law. Therefore, what is stated in that decision, in my opinion, does not support the conclusion that for the purpose of amending the Section 81(b) The Courts Law requires the consent of all parties, both for the amendment itself and for its content.