Background
Two respondents sued in the Petah Tikva Family Court to dissolve co-ownership of property in Kibbutz Sde Nehemia. Under a probate order, the applicant and each respondent held a one-third interest in the property. The respondents had first filed in the Nof HaGalil–Nazareth Family Court, which dismissed the action for lack of local jurisdiction because the property lay within the territorial jurisdiction of the Kiryat Shmona Family Court.
After the respondents refiled in Petah Tikva, where earlier proceedings between them had taken place, the applicant argued that the case was an inheritance dispute belonging in Kiryat Shmona. The Petah Tikva court rejected that characterization, treating the suit as one for dissolution of co-ownership and finding local jurisdiction. The Central District Court denied leave to appeal, holding that the action was a property dispute among family members and that Regulation 6(b) of the Family Court Regulations (Procedure), 2020 supported jurisdiction in Petah Tikva.
The applicant then asked the Supreme Court under Section 78 of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 1984 to transfer the case either to Tel Aviv–Jaffa, where she and the second respondent lived, or to Kiryat Shmona, where the property was located. An earlier Supreme Court transfer application had been struck while the local-jurisdiction issue remained pending in the district court.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Ruth Ronnen denied the application. The Supreme Court ordinarily declines to exercise its Section 78 transfer power when the trial-court system has concurrent authority to consider the requested transfer. In that situation, the applicant must first pursue the request before the authorized official at the trial-court level.
Regulation 8 of the Family Court Regulations authorizes the president of a Magistrates’ Court or the vice president of a Family Court to transfer an action to another court when special, recorded reasons make another forum preferable. The applicant therefore had to submit her request to that authorized official, who would decide it in the exercise of discretion.
The Supreme Court expressly declined to express any view on the merits of transferring the case to Tel Aviv–Jaffa or Kiryat Shmona.
Key Takeaways
- A Section 78 application to the Supreme Court will generally be denied when an authorized trial-court official has concurrent power to transfer the proceeding.
- Regulation 8 permits a designated Family Court or Magistrates’ Court official to order a transfer for special reasons stated in writing.
- The ruling did not decide whether Petah Tikva was the most appropriate venue or whether transfer to Tel Aviv–Jaffa or Kiryat Shmona was warranted.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a request for discretionary transfer from a challenge to local jurisdiction. Even after lower courts confirm that a Family Court has jurisdiction, a party seeking a more convenient or appropriate forum must use the Regulation 8 procedure before asking the Supreme Court to intervene under Section 78.