Indeed, the Respondent's position was based on the view regarding the existence of the inherent power of this Court to grant a request of the type of application in this case (and on this basis, below), but I see this consent as an agreement to the "many" (inherent and unlimited power) which in any case contains the "few" (an agreement to grant the court jurisdiction under Section 81(b) to the Courts Law).
In such circumstances (the summary of which is in the above quote, according to which the respondent's position is that "The petitioner's arguments deserve to be heard and clarified..."), I see no difficulty in determining that the Respondent gave its consent, which is required by Section 81(b) The Courts Law requires that the court consider the applicant's application on its merits and decide on it in accordance with its discretion.
- Precisely insofar as the matter is stated with the Applicant's consent, the circumstances are more complex: on the one hand, the Applicant defines his application as an application under section 81(b) of the Courts Law (and see sections 39 and 46 of the Motion for Cancellation, and Section 8 of the Response of August 17, 2025). On the other hand, it appears that the Applicant argues that his application can be regarded as an application under section 81(b) only to the extent that the Respondent agrees to it (sections 43, 47 and 48 of the Motion for Cancellation).
This position complicates the picture, and it could also have been determined that despite my desire to grant the request (for the most part) while rejecting the respondent's position on the merits of the matter, the applicant's position does not allow us to do so. However, in the circumstances of the case, I do not find room to determine this but to interpret the applicant's position as one that only sought to clarify that he does not agree to make amendments that deviate from his request.
In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the court has acquired the authority, according to Section 81(b) to the Courts Law, to edit the judgment given in the appeal "Any repair" which is required at his discretion.
- My determination above obviates the need to decide the question of whether this Court is granted "inherent authority" to correct an error that occurred in its judgment, even without the consent of all the parties and not within the narrow scope of correcting an "error" as defined in section 81(a) of the Courts Law.
The Respondent's position, in its preliminary response to the petition submitted by the Applicant to the High Court of Justice, was based on an argument according to which the Court is granted inherent authority as aforesaid, and hence its authority to hear the Applicant's application on its merits.