Court ruling9/1/2026

Supreme Court: Leave Is Required to Appeal the Denial of an Extension

The Israeli Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Oz Ceramica in case בש״א 8455/17. The Court held that a decision denying an extension of the deadline for filing a creditor’s claim is an “other decision,” for which leave to appeal is required.

Key facts

•Case: בש״א 8455/17
•Court: Israeli Supreme Court
•Justice: David Mintz
•Decision date: 13.11.2017
•Alleged debt: 76,677 shekels
•Legal basis: Sections 19A and 182 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance

The Dispute Between the Creditor and the Debtor

In February 2013, Michael Elkukin proposed a settlement to creditors under Section 19A of the Bankruptcy Ordinance [New Version], 5740–1980. The Jerusalem District Court approved the settlement on 7.4.2014, and the debtor was required to pay 50% of the recognized claims within two years. Oz Ceramica, which alleged a debt of 76,677 shekels for supplied goods, did not apply for an extension of the deadline for filing its claim until February 2016.

Three Decisions and the Question of Appeal

The company attempted to appeal the decisions issued on 7.4.2014, 28.5.2014, and 21.3.2016. In the final decision, the District Court refused to consider the late-filed claim because the company had been aware of the proceeding but had not provided any special reason for missing the deadline. On 16.10.2017, Supreme Court Registrar G. Lubinsky-Ziv struck out the appeal at the threshold: the first two decisions were appealed out of time, while the third decision was not appealable as of right.

Why Leave Is Required

Justice David Mintz agreed that the decision of 21.3.2016 was procedural in nature and was not a “bankruptcy order” under Section 182 of the Ordinance. Under the established rule, including in case ע״א 7829/04, a decision on an application to extend the deadline for filing a creditor’s claim is an “other decision.” It may therefore be challenged only through an application for leave to appeal, rather than by an appeal as of right.

The Supreme Court’s Conclusion

The Court rejected the argument that the third decision ended the dispute and therefore subsumed the two earlier interim decisions. Because it was not a final judgment for appellate purposes, it did not subsume the 2014 decisions, and the deadline for appealing them independently had also expired. The appeal was dismissed without requesting a response from the other party and without an award of legal costs.

What this means for you

A denial of an extension of the deadline for filing a creditor’s claim is not automatically appealable, even if it effectively prevents the creditor from participating in the proceeding. Review requires an application for leave to appeal; earlier decisions in the proceeding are also not automatically encompassed by such an appeal.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings