Background
Israel Mishar appealed a judgment of the Beersheba District Court concerning ownership rights in disputed land. The District Court had granted the Israel Land Authority’s claim and held that Mishar did not own the entire parcel because an error had occurred when the rights were recorded in the Land Registry.
During the appeal, Mishar asked the Supreme Court to reduce the security required for the respondent’s costs. He argued that the appeal had good prospects, raised significant issues with broad precedential implications, was unlikely to generate substantial costs, and involved a considerable disparity in power between the parties. The Authority opposed the request, emphasizing that Mishar had submitted no evidence of his financial circumstances or efforts to obtain the security from people close to him.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Moran Yahav denied the request. She explained that reducing security requires two cumulative showings: a complete and current factual record establishing financial inability, and a demonstration that the proceeding has genuine prospects of success. An applicant must also show an inability to raise the security with assistance from the applicant’s immediate circle.
Mishar had not provided even a minimal evidentiary basis for financial hardship. His application and affidavit did not disclose his income, expenses, bank-account activity, credit-card information, assets, or documented attempts to obtain assistance from others. His remaining arguments could not substitute for proof that he was unable to deposit the security, and favorable prospects alone did not justify a reduction.
The Registrar ordered Mishar to deposit the security by September 16, 2026, warning that the appeal could otherwise be dismissed without a further decision. She declined the Authority’s request for costs because the Supreme Court ordinarily does not award costs on an application to reduce security and the circumstances did not warrant departing from that practice.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant seeking reduced security for costs must prove financial inability through complete, current, and documented evidence.
- The appellant must also demonstrate genuine prospects of success and an inability to obtain assistance from people in the appellant’s immediate circle.
- Strong prospects on appeal, alleged power disparities, and the respondent’s ability to collect costs do not replace the required financial showing.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that applications to reduce appellate security are evidence-driven. General claims of unfairness, public importance, or a strong appeal will not suffice without detailed proof of the applicant’s finances and efforts to raise the required amount.
The ruling addresses only the security required to pursue the appeal; it does not decide the merits of Mishar’s challenge to the District Court’s land-ownership judgment.