Background
A foreign company sought access to the court file from an administrative petition concerning an infrastructure tender. The petition had been brought by unsuccessful bidders against the interministerial tender committee and competing companies, including the successful bidder and two affiliated companies. The Jerusalem District Court, sitting as a Court for Administrative Affairs, dismissed the underlying petition on August 20, 2025.
The applicant had entered into a memorandum of understanding with the successful companies concerning the tender. After that agreement was terminated, the parties entered international arbitration. The applicant argued that pleadings in the administrative case contained information about their relationship that could assist in the arbitration. The successful companies opposed access, alleging improper forum shopping, circumvention of the arbitration’s document-disclosure process and confidentiality order, inadequate disclosure by the applicant, and the absence of any entitlement to access for a foreign company.
The District Court denied the request, emphasizing that the applicant had not initially disclosed the arbitration or its pending freedom-of-information request and that access to a court file should not become a means of bypassing other procedures. During the Supreme Court proceedings, the parties submitted arbitral rulings showing, among other things, that the arbitrator had determined that the applicant’s parallel efforts to obtain information neither violated the arbitration’s procedural rules nor breached its confidentiality order.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Daphne Barak-Erez granted leave to appeal, treated the application as an appeal, and allowed it in part. The Court held that the District Court had effectively rejected the access request at the threshold instead of examining its merits and balancing the relevant interests under Regulation 4(d) of the Courts and Labor Courts (Inspection of Files) Regulations, 2003.
The Supreme Court stressed that the starting point is to permit access to court files because access derives from the principle that judicial proceedings are public. The party opposing access bears the burden of identifying a legitimate interest justifying refusal, and the successful companies had not done so. The applicant’s explanation also satisfied the regulations’ relatively modest justification requirement.
Neither the applicant’s foreign status nor its pursuit of the documents through arbitration and freedom-of-information proceedings justified outright denial. Access may serve a private interest, including another legal proceeding, and may be pursued alongside other disclosure mechanisms. Although the applicant should have disclosed the broader procedural context initially, that omission alone did not bar access. The Court remanded the matter for the District Court to decide the request on its merits and determine its proper scope, including whether access to particular documents should be restricted to protect confidentiality. The publication ban remained in force except as to the Supreme Court’s judgment, and the successful companies were ordered to pay NIS 6,000 in costs.
Key Takeaways
- The presumptive rule under Israel’s court-file access regulations is that access should be allowed, subject to a case-specific balancing of affected interests.
- A request may be made by a foreign company and may seek material for use in separate litigation or arbitration, even when other disclosure or freedom-of-information proceedings are pending.
- Procedural omissions and confidentiality concerns do not automatically justify wholesale denial; courts should examine the request on its merits and may impose document-specific limits.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces public access to Israeli court records as a principle extending beyond parties, citizens, and residents. It also confirms that court-file access is an independent avenue for obtaining information and is not displaced merely because an applicant has access to arbitral discovery or freedom-of-information procedures.
For parties to international arbitration involving Israeli projects, the ruling distinguishes between obtaining records from public judicial proceedings and violating an arbitral confidentiality regime. Courts must identify concrete confidentiality or third-party harms and consider tailored restrictions rather than rejecting access categorically.