There is no logic for any panel to render a decision on the grounds of disqualification after it has heard the arguments of the parties on the merits of the matter. A person who claims bias and is required to argue on the merits of the matter, is in any case afraid of any result that his argument will have, taking into account that bias, and in any case any decision that is given to his obligation, will be tainted in his view.
The matter is further strengthened where the body sitting in the law is not obligated to explain its considerations, and in any event, it will not be possible to know whether the decision is tainted by bias or not.
Therefore, the rule of natural justice requires that a decision be made regarding the claim of invalidity, after which that party will be able to plan its steps.
It should be noted that in accordance with Israeli law, a decision rejecting a claim of disqualification does not delay the hearing of the claim, but rather that the hearing of the claim was given against the background of the decision and the receipt of the panel's response to the claims raised against it, even before the claim is heard on its merits.
When the court refused to hear the argument regarding the disqualification, before the claim was heard on its merits, and even decided on the merits of the action, only because the respondent refused to litigate before the claim of disqualification was heard, his decision is tainted and the rules of justice require that it be annulled.
- I do not know whether, as the respondent claims, when the court gave its decision and held: "The court sees this as contempt, and a refusal!! Therefore, the court gave Mordechai Neumann's check to Yosef Cohen for the balance of the last judgment.", the court intended to 'punish' the respondent for his refusal to litigate, or the tribunal saw the absence from the hearing as a waiver of arguments and therefore gave its decision. The wording certainly does not benefit the intention of the tribunal and in any event, whatever the reason, the very decision of the tribunal not to allow an argument regarding the disqualification, which led to the respondent leaving the courtroom, is a decision that cannot stand in accordance with the rules of justice, and in any case the decision that was given as a result is invalid and should be annulled.
- I found that the previous decisions of the Tribunal were also tainted with flaw and were given without a fair trial and without the right of argument for the respondent.
The rule is that the right to plead is a fundamental right and the failure to grant the right to a plea is a defect that goes to the root of the matter.