I will emphasize. The Court's criticism of the Supreme Court's judgment is narrow and limited to examining the lack of authority, violation of the rules of natural justice, and exceptional circumstances of extreme unreasonableness. It is clear from this that even if the opinion of the Court differs from the opinion of the Supreme Court, whether on a legal question, such as the interpretation of the law, or on a factual question that arises from the circumstances of the case, and even if in the opinion of the Court there was an error in the judgment, the Court will not intervene in the judgment, unless a cause of absence of jurisdiction, a violation of the rules of natural justice, or an extreme and exceptional lack of reasonableness is found.
- Against the background of the above, the plaintiff's arguments must be examined.
Summary of Hapoel's Arguments
- At the outset, I will note that in light of the court's recommendation, the delay in filing the lawsuit and the current circumstances, Hapoel retracted the claims regarding the technical loss and the replay, so that the hearing focuses on deducting one point in practice and applying the condition that directs the deduction of another point.
- Regarding the conditional reduction of the point, Hapoel argues that the Supreme Court erred when it ruled that the condition set out in the 125674 proceeding should be applied in respect of firing fireworks into the field.
Hapoel argues in this regard that the condition was not fulfilled because the relevant sections deal with a conviction in the circumstances enumerated in section 22K3A or in the circumstances enumerated in section 22K3B1, and not with the circumstances enumerated in section 22K1 (see sections 109 and 111 of the statement of claim).
From here, the worker clarifies that "... the court erred when it determined that the circumstances in section 22k3, which are reserved for circumstances that are not aggravated" (see paragraph 112 of the statement of claim).