Court ruling8/23/2026

Supreme Court: Before Amendment No. 33, a Second Appeal Could Be Filed as of Right

The Supreme Court of Israel held in LCA 1853/12 that proceedings commenced before Amendment No. 33 to the Execution Law entered into force were governed by the previous arrangement. Accordingly, in this case an appeal as of right could be filed with the District Court against the Magistrate’s Court judgment on an appeal from a decision of the Execution Registrar, without obtaining prior leave.

Key facts

•Case: LCA 1853/12
•Court: Supreme Court of Israel
•Decision date: February 28, 2013
•District Court case: CA 2878-10-10
•Magistrate’s Court case: ASA 19432-02-10
•Legal provisions: Sections 52 and 96 of the Courts Law; Section 80(b2) of the Execution Law

How the Dispute Arose

After the court confirmed an arbitration award, the applicants—Shlomo Avniel and the Estate of the late Avraham Avniel—initiated execution proceedings against Ephraim Pollak and two companies. On April 25, 2007, the respondents sought to close the case on the ground that the debt had been paid, and on February 9, 2010, the Registrar granted the application. The Magistrate’s Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal in ASA 19432-02-10.

Why the Case Reached the Supreme Court

The applicants filed an appeal as of right with the Tel Aviv–Jaffa District Court. However, on December 18, 2011, the court held in CA 2878-10-10 that leave to appeal was required and dismissed the proceeding in limine. This was based on Section 96 of the Courts Law and the general principle that a dispute is ordinarily heard by two judicial instances.

What the Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, heard the application as an appeal, and allowed it. The Court noted that Section 96 of the Courts Law governs decisions by court registrars, not Execution Registrars. In the absence of a special restriction, Section 52 of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 5744-1984, applies and provides for an appeal as of right from judgments of the Magistrate’s Court.

The Role of Amendment No. 33

Amendment No. 33 added Section 80(b2) to the Execution Law, 5727-1967: henceforth, a further appeal from a Magistrate’s Court judgment on an appeal from a Registrar’s decision requires leave. However, the amendment applies prospectively and does not apply to proceedings commenced before it entered into force. The Supreme Court therefore remanded the case to the District Court for it to be heard specifically as an appeal.

Limits of the Ruling

The Court did not establish a rule regarding a situation in which the initial application from the Execution Office to the Magistrate’s Court itself required leave. That question did not require determination in the dispute before the Court and remained open. The decision was delivered unanimously by Justices S. Joubran, N. Hendel, and Z. Zylbertal.

What this means for you

In older execution proceedings commenced before Amendment No. 33, it was possible, in the circumstances described, to appeal as of right to the District Court from a Magistrate’s Court judgment on an appeal from the Registrar’s decision. In proceedings governed by the current Section 80(b2), leave is required for a further appeal. The outcome also depends on whether the first application to the Magistrate’s Court was an appeal as of right or required leave.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings