The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916The claim against respondent No. 2 continued to be clarified, and a decision was made regarding the submission of affidavits of the main witness. In the affidavit of the main witness on behalf of Mr. David Shem Tov, the VP of Operations for Defendant No. 2 at the time, it was stated that "the plaintiff's funds are in her account and are completely released from day one (they were never detained) and she can withdraw them at any time, and without any restriction (this was exactly how it started).(Section 17 of the affidavit and see also paragraph 19).
12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, Pis. D. 51 (2)On the basis of this statement, the court proposed to the plaintiff a proposal that was recorded by the plaintiff as follows:
"I accept the court's recommendation, I will withdraw my money as defendant 2 proposed, and in this matter I will not file any further lawsuit against defendant 2." On the basis of this agreement on the part of defendant 2 as well, the court ordered, during the hearing on July 17,2023, that the claim against it be dismissed.
Three days after the judgment was rendered, the Applicant filed a motion for a ruling, in which she announced that her request to Defendant 2 to withdraw her funds had been refused. The court rejected the request for a ruling, but emphasized that defendant 2 must allow the withdrawal of the funds as it declared. In response, defendant 2 announced that it could not help, and that its statements that the Applicant's funds had never been withheld were given in good faith but stemmed from a lack of knowledge of the facts. The court accepted defendant 2's explanation and a request to clarify his decision was denied.
The proceeding in the trial court and the decision that is the subject of the application
- On April 7,2024, the Applicant filed the present claim in the Court of First Instance (Civil Suit in Rapid Hearing 18160-04-24) [Nevo] against Respondent 1 only, in the framework of which she sought to recognize Respondent 2 as the representative of Respondent 1 in Israel for the purpose of producing BDN transcripts. Respondent No. 2 objected and claimed that she was not the representative of Respondent No. 1 and was not authorized to receive court documents on her behalf.
- On December 1,2024, the Trial Court rejected the Applicant's application, relying on the decision of the Honorable Judge Baum in the previous proceeding, and ruled that the provision of services by Respondent 2 was insufficient for the purpose of authorizing it to receive court documents on behalf of Respondent 1 and that nothing can be learned from the judgment in the Microsoft case regarding the matter at hand.
- The Applicant filed an application for leave to appeal against this decision, (Civil Appeal Authority 50399-12-24) [Nevo]. The Honorable Judge Ziegler accepted the request for leave to appeal, heard the appeal and accepted the appeal in part. In her judgment of March 27,2025, the Honorable Justice Ziegler annulled the decision of the trial court, stating, inter alia, that "a great deal of factual data was raised relating to the conduct between the respondents, the nature of the relationship between them and its meaning for the purpose of the term 'representative' and how the interface between the two respondents works (for example: the email that the applicant received from respondent 1, a presentation on the website of respondent 2, etc.). It is difficult to decide the matter without factual clarification, and the decision of the trial court does not directly address the arguments of the parties and the documents to which they referred, in a manner that no real and reasoned decision was given as to the nature of the relationship between the two respondents and whether they meet the test of case law."Therefore, the appellate court ordered that the case be returned to the trial court for the purpose of conducting a factual inquiry as to the nature of the relationship between the respondents, while concretely examining the tests of "the nature of the relationship", "the duration of the relationship" and "the same matter", as well as a decision on its merits on the claim of a court action.
Following the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, a hearing was held in the Court of First Instance on July 15,2025, during which the Applicant and the CEO of Respondent No. 2 testified.