Grave fear of bias and improper communication with the arbitrators: The respondent learned that the applicant was alone with the arbitrators and had conversations with them by telephone in the presence of one party, in complete contravention of the rules of justice. Proof of this is the fact that it was the applicant who sent the respondent the judgment as aforesaid, when the respondent clarified the meaning of the matter with the presiding judge, it was answered that the applicant did indeed remain with the judges at the end of the first hearing for the purpose of 'talking about other things'. The respondent further claimed that there were talks between the judges and the applicant. The Respondent argues that the existence of joint topics of conversation, insofar as they are not relevant to the proceeding, and the direct connection between the Applicant and the arbitrators in the absence of the other party, necessitates the invalidation of the judgments.
Rendering judgments without an evidentiary basis and due process: The first judgment, which obligates the respondent to pay a considerable sum of ILS 1,590,000, was given within an exceptional period of time, without the respondent's arguments being heard, without presenting his evidence and without hearing his witnesses. Subsequently, it is not clear why a second judgment was issued, since between the first and second judgments no hearing took place or a request was filed and a response was required.
Lack of transparency: Despite the respondent's attorney's requests on August 24,2025 and August 25,2025, to receive the file material, the minutes and documents, the court replied as follows: "In principle, it does not refrain from transferring the material to one of the parties, although since the material is not large, it will not be carried out until the next hearing. The judgments that were sent are in the hands of the plaintiff and the defendant." In practice, on August 26,2025, a few hours before the hearing, only the arbitration deed was sent from the tribunal's secretariat, and regarding the minutes, it was written as follows: "When the venue is moved, the minutes are not observed, as stated in the arbitration deed signed by both parties, " while the rest of the alleged material was not sent.