This result is difficult, contrary to the sense of justice, and it is not surprising that it took effort and creativity to find a solution, including in the form of recognition of that "inherent authority" (for the view regarding the need and justification for recognizing the authority of this court, to deviate and amend a judgment given by it, in circumstances in which the case was returned to the District Court and then returned to the hearing of the appeal again, see the judge's judgment T. Or OnCivil Appeal 5610/93 Zalesky v. Rishon LeZion Local Planning and Building CommitteeIsrSC 51(1) 68 (1997)).
However, recognition of inherent authority, as claimed, encounters considerable difficulty, in my opinion. This is in light of the existence of the Article 81 The Courts Law, which is a specific provision of law, which regulates the issue of the court's authority to amend a judgment or decision issued by it, and which clearly relates to two different situations:
הראשון - A request to correct an error submitted without the consent of all the parties. In this case, the regulated In section 81(a) According to the Courts Law, the court's authority is explicitly limited by the definition of the"Mistake" that the court is authorized to enact, as it relates to"A mistake in language, a mistake in calculation, a slip of a pen, an accidental omission, a random addition of something, and the like".
The second - A situation in which there is agreement of the parties, in which case the remediation authority is broad and relates to"Any repair" (Section 81(b) to the Courts Law).
And this is the difficulty: the formulation of Section 81(a) And even more than that, the very existence of Section 81(b)The Courts Law, as part of that overall legal arrangement, makes it very difficult not to determine that the Section 81(a) The Courts Law creates a negative arrangement regarding the court's authority to amend a judgment, without the consent of all the parties, beyond the narrow scope of the Section 81(a). Thus, a determination that the court has the authority to correct, without the consent of all the parties, a correction of an "error" that deviates from its definition In section 81(a) The Courts Law does not appear "only" to contradict the Section 81(a) Rather, it is as such that the instruction of the Section 81(b) to the Courts Law.