"This approach to the dismissal clause maintains a proper balance between the various conflicting considerations. It deters an heir from raising frivolous and non-bona fide claims. It protects an heir who has a reasonable claim and in good faith. This balanced approach promotes the testator's true will. It denies the right of an heir who attacks the testator's will on frivolous grounds. On the other hand, it does not deny the right of an heir, who raises a serious claim as to the testator's own discretion, and thus it allows full expression of his true determination. How can the application of the dismissal clause be protected against a certain heir, on the grounds of respecting the will of the testator, when that heir raises a serious claim before the court that the testator was deceived, or that unfair influence was exerted on him? What is the public interest in the existence of a dismissal clause, where a certain heir objects to the will on the serious grounds that it did not meet the requirements set forth in the Inheritance Law?" (See: The Engelman case, in paragraph 8 of the judgment of Justice Barak).
- Justice M. Beisky adopted the interim solution proposed by Justice Barak. Justice Beisky further argued that "the public policy is that the gates of the court shall not be closed to a person for clarifying a real and honest issue, such as the invalidation of a will due to forgery, unfair influence, and similar reasons. However, public policy is also the perception, which runs like a thread in the Inheritance Law, that the testator's last will must be given validity, as it found expression in his will, subject to the same qualifications that the law establishes [...] Sometimes the attack on the will and the proof of its invalidity are actually the ones that are likely to give validity to the testator's true will" (see: the Engelman case, in paragraph 2 of the judgment of Justice Beisky).
- In the Engelman case, it was therefore held, by a majority opinion, that as a rule, dismissal clauses will be given validity, unless "the heir raises in good faith an objection argument that is reasonable in its circumstances" (see: the Engelman case, at paragraph 8 of Justice Barak's judgment).
From now on, we will call this condition "The Test of Good Faith and Reasonableness".