In Civil Case (Jerusalem District) 69600-03-25 Dov Shmuel Elbaum v. Yitzhak Matityahu Weinberg (published in Nevo, December 30,2025), it was held that the conduct of separate meetings or conversations with the parties by an arbitrator violates the trust and appearance of justice and establishes grounds for annulling an arbitration award, and obligates the arbitrator to inform the other party of the content of such meetings:
"As is well known, as a rule, an arbitrator must refrain from conducting separate meetings or separate conversations with the parties. Such conduct is likely to harm the parties' confidence in the arbitrator and the appearance of justice, and establishes grounds for annulment of the arbitral award in accordance with section 24 of the Arbitration Law, and can point to a miscarriage of justice as stated in section 26(a) of the Law (Civil Appeal Authority 1531/14 Abu Daof v. Abu Da'uf (July 14,2014)). The rules of natural justice require that the parties be given a full opportunity to present their arguments and present their evidence, as well as to hear and respond to the opposing party's arguments. Admittedly, the parties may authorize the arbitrator to meet with any of them individually, but this must be done explicitly. In this case, there was no consent to an arbitration proceeding in the manner in which it was conducted. Moreover, even if there had been authorization to act in this manner, the arbitrator would have been obligated to inform the opposing party of any such meeting and its contents, in order to enable the opposing party to respond to the matter. This was not done. Hence, even if an arbitration proceeding had been conducted, the proceeding was flawed in a manner that establishes grounds for cancellation as aforesaid."
In the Motion to Initiate Arbitration (Central District) 16325-02-15 Idan HaGeula Ltd. v. Tamar Cohen (Nevo, April 3,2016), an arbitration award was annulled due to a violation of the right to a plea (section 24(4) of the Arbitration Law), when the arbitrator held telephone conversations or meetings in the presence of one party, without allowing the other party to respond to the arguments and documents. The court held as follows: