Court ruling8/31/2026

Supreme Court Refuses to Disqualify Judge in Tenant Eviction Dispute

The Supreme Court of Israel dismissed Mordechai Cohen’s appeal against the refusal to disqualify the judge in a case concerning eviction from a store on Agripas Street in Jerusalem. The Court held that the judge’s disputed remarks reflected only a preliminary assessment of the case and did not demonstrate bias.

Key facts

•Case: ע"א 5131/12
•Court: Supreme Court of Israel
•Decision: October 3, 2012
•Underlying case: ת.א. 48328-05-10
•Rent: NIS 3,500 per year
•Legal costs: NIS 15,000

Dispute Over Store Renovations

Nurit Bakshi and Orly Bakshi, who hold rights to the property, sought Cohen’s eviction from the leased premises, where he sold clothing. They alleged that renovations he carried out damaged the property. Cohen argued that he was a protected tenant and that the work was necessary because of serious safety hazards following infrastructure work on Agripas Street; alternatively, he requested “equitable relief.”

Why Disqualification Was Requested

During the evidentiary hearing on June 21, 2012, Cohen filed a second motion to disqualify Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court Judge T. Bar-Asher Tzaban. He argued that before the examination of evidence had concluded, the judge had effectively expressed a view regarding the poor prospects of his defense, the rarity of granting “equitable relief” for commercial property, and the amount of rent—NIS 3,500 per year. The Magistrate’s Court denied the motion, stating that its position was not final and could change as the case proceeded.

The Supreme Court’s Position

Supreme Court President A. Grunis noted that a renewed motion for disqualification is permissible if it is based on a new circumstance that arose after the previous decision and is filed without delay. However, even an unfortunate remark by a judge generally does not constitute grounds for disqualification. Disqualification is required when the remarks indicate a conclusively formed position that cannot be changed and an unwillingness to hear the parties’ arguments.

Outcome of the Appeal

The Supreme Court found that the remark about the prospects of the defense may have been inappropriate and would have been better left unsaid. Nevertheless, it was a preliminary assessment intended, among other things, to save time and costs, and the judge remained open to persuasion. The appeal was dismissed, and Cohen was ordered to pay NIS 15,000 toward the respondents’ attorneys’ fees.

What this means for you

Dissatisfaction with a judge’s preliminary remarks does not by itself mean that the judge will be disqualified. It must be shown that the judge has already formed a final, unchangeable position and is no longer willing to consider arguments and evidence; a subjective concern about bias is insufficient.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings