Background
The case arose from a proposed class action against Delek Group Ltd. and several of its officers, alleging losses caused by inadequate disclosures. The Tel Aviv–Jaffa District Court partially certified the action in November 2022. Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement. Miriam Wiesoli objected, but the District Court approved the settlement and rejected her objection on April 10, 2025.
Wiesoli’s first appeal was dismissed in March 2026 because she had not properly deposited security, and an appeal from that dismissal was subsequently rejected. She then filed a new appeal challenging the same judgment. After Registrar Ron Goldstein questioned whether the new appeal was untimely without a motion for an extension, Wiesoli sought his recusal. She argued that Meitar Law Offices appeared on the registrar’s conflicts list, employed his relative, and represented Delek Group in other matters. The respondents answered that Meitar had never represented any party in this litigation, which was handled for Delek and the other corporate respondents by Agmon with Tulchinsky.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Goldstein denied the recusal motion. He held that inclusion of a person or firm on a judge’s conflicts list does not automatically require disqualification. The governing question under section 77A(a) of the Courts Law is whether the particular circumstances create a real apprehension of bias.
Although Meitar was on the registrar’s conflicts list because his relative worked there, Meitar neither represented nor had represented the parties in this case or in the District Court proceedings. Its representation of Delek or companies associated with Delek’s controlling shareholder in unrelated matters did not, without a stronger connection to this litigation, establish a real apprehension of bias. The registrar also rejected the claimed disclosure violation, holding that a judge need not investigate every outside law firm that may provide unrelated services to a litigant when the firm appearing in the case is entirely different and has no connection to the judge.
Wiesoli was ordered to pay NIS 2,000 in costs to Gavrieli and an additional NIS 2,000 collectively to respondents 2 through 9.
Key Takeaways
- A judicial conflicts list is an administrative screening tool, not an automatic ground for recusal.
- Recusal requires a concrete connection creating a real apprehension of bias in the particular proceeding.
- A listed law firm’s representation of a party in unrelated matters ordinarily does not require recusal or proactive disclosure when another, unconnected firm handles the litigation.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies the limits of judicial conflicts lists in Israeli practice. A litigant cannot establish disqualification merely by tracing an opposing party’s unrelated legal work to a firm appearing on the judge’s list; the asserted relationship must have sufficient strength and relevance to the proceeding itself.
It also confines a judge’s proactive disclosure obligation to circumstances presenting a concrete possible ground for recusal or a substantial connection to the case or its parties, rather than imposing an impractical duty to investigate all outside counsel used by every litigant.