An Israeli lawyer, sued by an Israeli investor who had entered into a real estate investment agreement abroad through the lawyer via a foreign partnership, requested to dismiss the investor's claim in limine, arguing that Israel is not the proper forum to hear the dispute.
The Supreme and District Courts dismissed the motion due to defendant failing to show the existence of another proper forum. Once it has been determined that an Israeli court has jurisdiction over the dispute brought before it, the defendant must show that there is an alternative proper forum outside of Israel. To establish the existence of another proper forum, the court is required to address the following three questions: (a) which legal forum has the most significant connections to the dispute; (b) what are the reasonable expectations of the parties regarding the venue of litigation; and (c) public policy considerations, including which forum has a "genuine interest" in hearing the action Here, although the plaintiff resides abroad, neither party has a close connection to another forum that would justify exclusive litigation there. Regarding the plaintiff's expectations, the fact that the defendant is an Israeli attorney whose activities are subject to Israeli law establishes the plaintiff's reasonable expectation that the legal proceedings would be conducted in Israel. This is also supported by the recognized expectation that entities may be sued in the countries where they operate. As for the public interest, since the core issues of the dispute pertain to the conduct of the defendant, who is an Israeli attorney, and to the communications the defendant conducted from Israel, the Israeli court has a "genuine" interest in hearing the claim. Hence, the defendant's motion for summary dismissal on the grounds that Israel is not the proper forum was denied.