12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)4. In the application for an extension of the deadline, the Applicants claim that after the deletion decision was issued, they believed in good faith that it was a matter of"Another Decision" of a registrar and a reliever The court competent to hear the appeal against it It is the court in which the Registrar serves, i.e., the Central-Lod District Court. Indeed, the Applicants did not delay, according to them, in filing the Registrar's appeal, as aforesaid, and did so as early as May 10, 2026. Moreover, the court hearing the Registrar's appeal subsequently ordered the submission of the Respondent's response to the application (without the appeal being dismissed out of hand due to lack of authority), and this fact based the Applicants' belief that the Central Lod District Court is the competent court to hear the appeal.
- According to the Applicants, insofar as they erred regarding the correct manner of objection to the deletion decision, we are dealing with a mistake in good faith, and a reasonable error in the totality of the circumstances of the matter. In this context, the Applicants refer to various decisions given in the various District Courts, which indicate that there were cases in the past in which the District Court heard an appeal against the decision of the District Court Registrar accepting an improper forum claim. It was also claimed that the duration of the delay is minimal and that the respondent knew of their clear intention to appeal further On Day 294.2026, and even received the Registrar's Appeal which was filed with the District Court on May 10, 2026, so that the It can be determined that His Reliance Interest On the finality of the deletion decision, we will be harmed in some way. The Applicants claim that the chances of the proceeding are good in view of the errors that they claim fell in the deletion decision, and that the rejection of the request for an extension of time It will lock the gates of the court before them and inflict an extreme procedural injustice on them in a dispute estimated at about ILS 50 million.
- The Respondent, for its part, opposes the application. According to him, An error by a lawyer in the law of practice or in the procedures, and in particular in the classification of a judgment of a registrar that terminates the proceeding, cannot constitute a special reason for extending the deadline To take up an appeal proceeding. According to the respondent, the chances of an appeal are slim and contrary to the Applicants' position, Respondent Thinks that when the date for filing the appeal to the competent court has passed, he has the right to rely on the finality of the hearing.
00Copied from Nevo
- 07. The focus of the application is therefore the Applicants' argument that they should have filed The appeal process against the deletion decision was sent to the District Court and not to the Supreme Court. My opinion is, as the District Court held in the Registrar's appeal, that this reasoning of the Applicants was indeed erroneous.
- In civil proceedings, it is common to distinguish between two main types of judicial decisions: "judgment" and "other decision". The "judgment" generally concludes the discussion of the proceeding, whereas "another decision" does not, as a rule, constitute the end of the judgment for the further clarification of the proceeding brought before the court (see, Yoel Sussman Civil Procedure 753-757 (7th ed., 1995)). This distinction has very important implications for the appeal process, where the decision is made by a registrar (who is not senior). This is because an appeal proceeding against "Another Decision" of a registrar (who is not senior) must be submitted to the court in which the registrar serves (Section 96(b) of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 588"D-1984 (hereinafter: The Courts Law)), while "Judgment" of a registrar (who is not senior), his judgment in the matter of an appeal is the same as a judgment of the court in which he serves as a registrar (Section 96(a) to the Courts Law). In order to assist in distinguishing between a "judgment" and a "different decision", the question of whether the decision given ended the clarification of the dispute between the parties is examined (see, Civil Appeal 226/61 Doron v. Tzachoval, IsrSC 16 1911, 1919 (1962); Civil Appeal 6058/93 Mandelblit v. Mandelblit, IsrSC 51(4) 354, 362 (1997)). This is in fact the "case closure test", according to which when the judicial decision under review led to the closure of the case, so that there is nothing left regarding the resolution of the dispute, it is a "judgment", whereas to the extent that the relevant judicial decision did not close the case, it is generally a "different decision" (See, Civil Appeal 3685/20 Dikla Insurance Company Ltd. v. Keller, paragraph 12 [Nevo] (14.10.2021)).
- An exception to this rule has been recognized, In relation to the case of deletion of a proceeding due to non-payment of a fee. Regarding Cases This type It was determined that this was a "different decision" that required permission to be reached. The reason for this is the deletion of a proceeding for this reason, does not close the door on the plaintiff's substantive rights, since it does not constitute an act of the court and deals with the matter of the main dispute (Ltd. 7910/22 Anonymous vs. Anonymous, paragraph 2 [Nevo] (18.12.2022); Civil Appeal 21063-11-24 Shapira v. Machora - Kfar Cooperative Ltd., PYaskaut 14-13 [Nevo] (20.1.2025); Civil Appeal 68918-01-25 Shaham v. Assessing Officer, Jerusalem Jaffa Branch, paragraph 11 [Nevo] (3.8.2025); Appeal of Registrar's Decision 43901-03-26 Fromer v. State of Israel Tax Authority, paragraph 4 [Nevo] (3.5.2026)).
- Similarly, it was recently ruled (Civil Appeal Authority 1462-04-26 Nanikashvili v. Kibbutz Israel Poalim Group for Cooperative Settlement Ltd., paragraph 10 [Nevo] (June 15, 2026) (Honorable Judge Rabbi Ronen) (hereinafter: The Nanikashvili Matter)), that even when it comes to the dismissal of a claim due to the plaintiff's failure to appear, this does not constitute a decision regarding the plaintiff's substantive rights, and similarly the reason for the dismissal, the plaintiff's failure to appear, is the main dispute in the proceeding. Therefore, a decision regarding the dismissal of the proceeding due to failure to appear will also be classified as"Another Decision" And not as"Judgment". In this regard, the Honorable Justice further noted Anonymous, in the matter of Nanikashvili, Name Because:
"[..] Relevant to our case are also the considerations of procedural efficiency relating to objection proceedings, as well as the need to alleviate the great burden imposed on the courts and the need to save valuable judicial time [...] Indeed, with regard to the deletion of a statement of claim in these contexts, it has already been clarified that this is not a fateful decision, since 'the significance of the deletion of a statement of claim is a return to the beginning of the queue by filing a new claim while re-bearing the fee required thereby [...] the deletion of the claim does not negate his essential rights' (Explanatory Notes to the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018, p. 21) [...] The following words were expressed in relation to the plaintiff's failure to appear in particular: 'The plaintiff's failure to appear will lead to the dismissal of the proceeding, because the initiating party – the plaintiff who summoned the defendant to trial – did not appear, and thus waived his claim. This is a decision that is technically [...] These words stand in contrast, for example, to deletion due to the absence of a cause of action – which deals with questions relating to the body of the main dispute in the proceeding (whereas with respect to such a deletion – I do not express any opinion as to the manner in which it should be objected)."
- Given The aforesaid rules set forth in the case law, I am of the opinion that A decision that dismisses the lawsuit, Due to an inappropriate forum, it is like a "judgment" and not a "different decision" (Certainly: if we were dealing only with an objection to a decision that revokes a permit to invent an invention outside the boundary, then there would be room to classify it as"Another Decision"; See, Civil Appeal 8130/19 Sunshine from Alisa Ltd. v. RIO GRANDE INC, paragraph 7 [Nevo] (21.7.2020); However, in our case, the decision also included the determination that the claim should be deleted due to an improper forum).
- Unlike deletion due to non-payment of fees or failure to appear The Plaintiff, deletion due to an inappropriate forum is not Relying About a technical omission of the litigant, and its meaning is not summarized in"Back to the beginning of the line" by refiling the lawsuit in the Israeli court. Instead, this decision closes the door on The Plaintiff's Ability to Clarify His Claim in the courts in Israel and binding him, in fact, Litigate in a foreign country. Although this decision is not Establishing The act of the court on the merits of the dispute, the removal of a plaintiff from the gates of the courts in Israel has consequences Not negligible as well about his substantive rights, about the balance of power between the parties, and touches on his very right of access to the courts. This is not a matter of "dealing" with the dispute, but rather a decision Mamshit which constitutes the end of the sentence for clarifying the proceeding in Israel. Therefore, the Applicants were indeed mistaken when they believed that the deletion decision was tantamount to"Another Decision" of the Honorable Registrar and therefore the appeal proceeding was submitted, first, to the District Court. It was"Judgment", in accordance with the aforementioned classification rules, and as explained above, a judgment of a registrar (who is not senior) is the same as a judgment of the court in which he serves as a registrar (Section 96(a) to the Courts Law). Indeed, a review of the case law of this court shows that this court has already Held that a decision granting an application to revoke an extraterritorial invention permit and, as a result, orders the closure of the case (whether by way of delay of the hearing due to a foreign jurisdiction clause or by way of a stay of proceedings due to an arbitration clause), is tantamount to"Judgment" And not as"Another Decision" (See, for example, Civil Appeal 5666/94 Salim Sankri v. Julius Blum G. M. B. H, P"45(4) 73 (1996); Civil Appeal 9725/04 Ashburn Agencies and Trading Company Ltd. v. CAE Electroics Ltd [Nevo] (4.9.2007); See also Civil Appeal 2547/23 Office Textiles Ltd. v. Broklinen Inc Delaware co 5469940 [Nevo] (28.12.2023)Where an appeal is heard Thanks to on the District Court judge's decision to delete a claim due to an improper forum).
- Against the background of the aforesaid, the question arises as to whether the mistake that occurred in submitting the proceeding, at first, to the District Court, constitutes a special reason that justifies granting an extension of the date for its submission to this Court. And it does: Accordingly Regulation 176(b) To the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779- 2018 (hereinafter: Rules of Procedure), The applicant must deviate from the dates set out in the Regulations and indicate "special reasons" for doing so. These reasons will be examined, inter alia, in view of the question of whether the delay in filing the proceeding stems from circumstances that are not foreseeable or dependent on the litigant, and taking into account, inter alia, the duration of the requested extension, the justifications claimed for it, and the degree of reliance of the opposing party (see, Miscellaneous Requests Civil 6410/18 Let the Animals Live vs. Anonymous, paragraph 3 [Nevo] (November 5, 2018)). As a rule, an error of law does not constitute a "special reason" for granting an extension of the deadline (see, for example, 31320-12-24 Baratz v. Jerusalem Municipality [Nevo] (December 26, 2024)), all the more so when the litigant is represented. However, in the appropriate circumstances, an error of law can amount to a "special reason", when it is found that it is a reasonable error, both objectively (the interpretation of the law) and subjectively (the effort taken to prevent the error) (see, Miscellaneous Applications Civil 3933/20 The Yizreelim Local Planning and Building Committee v. Estate of the Late Halperin Herman z"l, paragraph 5 [Nevo] (16.6.2020) (Hereinafter: The Jezreel Matter); Civil Appeal 2970/18 Kamel v. Karbaki, paragraph 9 [Nevo] (August 22, 2018)). On the objective level, the more ambiguous the law, and the more it can be interpreted in ways (which have not yet been decided in case law), the court will tend to view that a reasonable mistake has been made. Even where the law as a rule is clear, there will still be cases in which the absence of a previous judicial decision directly relating to the proceeding in question will justify granting a request for an extension of time (In a criminal case - minimum wage 6229/11 Yihya v. The Local Planning and Building Committee, Haifa, paragraph 8 [Nevo] (January 10, 2012)). It was further determined that a request for an extension of time on the basis of an error in the law will be examined, inter alia, taking into account the nature of the error, its reasons and logic, its reasonableness and its implications for the rights of the other parties, as well as taking into account the degree of their reliance on the finality of the proceeding (see, Interest Jezreel in paragraph 5).
- From the general to the individual. The application of the aforesaid criteria to the circumstances of the present case leads to the conclusion that There is a justification, in a hurry, for granting the requested extension. Although a careful reading of the law and the case law should have led to to conclude that the correct way of appeal is to appeal to this court, on the other hand, some weight should be given to the fact that in the past, the district courts have discussed, in various cases, in the framework of registrar's appeals, decisions in which an improper forum claim was made against some or all of the defendants (e.g., Appeal against the decision of the Registrar (Tel Aviv District) 23074-09-23 Joint Stock Company Commercial Bank PrivatBank v. Kolomoisky [Nevo] (27.3.2025; Appeal against the decision of the Registrar (Central District) 2357-10-21 Rakah v. Raphael [Nevo] (January 19, 2022)). Admittedly, it is doubtful whether On the subjective level, the Applicants indicated that they made a real effort to clarify the law prior to the filing of the appeal proceeding (I will emphasize that the fact that the District Court ordered the filing of Response to the Registrar's Appeal Before Deleting It, does not help For Applicants, as This is a development that occurred after the mistake had already been made In any case, A technical provision on the submission of a reply does not constitute a judicial decision on the question of jurisdiction, and a represented party may not view it as an approval of the procedural course he has chosen, where the respondent himself raised the claim of lack of jurisdiction in his answer at the first opportunity). However, in the totality of the circumstances, taking into account that the Applicants' original attempt to appeal the deletion decision occurred relatively shortly after this decision was given (with all that this entails also with regard to the Respondent's reliance interest); Bearing in mind that we are dealing with an appeal by right, In this regard, increased weight should be given to the right of access to the courts; and considering the short delay; I have come to the conclusion, not without hesitation, that there is room to grant an extension in the circumstances of the case, subject to an award of costs in favor of the respondent, who should not be held accountable for the mistake made by the applicants that obligated him to submit a response to the application.
- The application is therefore granted in the sense that an extension is hereby granted for the filing of the appeal proceeding until August 13, 2026. The granting of an extension will be noted at the beginning of the appeal proceeding, if it is submitted, and this decision will be attached as an appendix. In view of what is stated in paragraph 14 above, the Applicants will bear the Respondent's expenses in the sum of ILS 5,000"The payment of the expenses will be a condition for the filing of the proceeding.
Granted today, 24 Av 5786 (07 August 2026).
| Skip to content |