Supreme Court Dismisses Petition to Revoke “Restricted Customer” Status

Why the Petitioner Was Declared a Restricted Customer

The petitioner joined another person’s existing current account. He claimed that nine checks had previously been dishonored without his knowledge, and that two additional checks were dishonored after he joined the account. On March 3, 2010, the respondent notified both account holders that they had been declared restricted customers under Section 2(a) of the Checks Without Cover Law, 5741–1981.

What the Petitioner Sought

The petitioner asked the High Court of Justice to revoke his status as a “restricted customer.” He argued that imposing the restriction because of two checks dishonored after he joined the account was disproportionate, given the severe consequences of that status. He also relied on the principles of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.

Why the Petition Was Dismissed

The Court noted that Section 10 of the Checks Without Cover Law and the relevant regulations establish a special challenge procedure: an application to the Magistrate’s Court. The petitioner and the other account holder had previously filed such an appeal, but later agreed to its dismissal; that agreement was given the force of a judgment in Case ע״א 32028-04-10. The arguments concerning constitutional rights and statutory interpretation could also have been raised in the appeal prescribed by law, rather than through a direct petition to the High Court of Justice.

Outcome of the Judgment

The High Court of Justice summarily dismissed the petition without considering the arguments on their merits. Because the respondent was not asked to submit a response, no legal costs were awarded.

Latest legal news

• Court allows parents of late Maj. Ofek Bachar to use his sperm
• High Court issues order nisi over regional radio reform
• Supreme Court decision in BSA 8455/17 addresses appeal classification