Background
Mahid Tarabshi sought leave to appeal a Nazareth District Court decision refusing to set aside a judgment entered against him after he failed to appear. When filing the application for leave to appeal, Tarabshi was required to deposit security for the respondent’s costs under Israel’s Civil Procedure Regulations.
Tarabshi first proposed satisfying the requirement through a notice of setoff based on a debt he alleged Saleh Shakib owed him. The Supreme Court rejected that proposal because the alleged debt was disputed. Tarabshi then requested either a complete exemption from the security requirement or an extension until November 30, 2026, asserting financial and medical hardship, reliance on National Insurance Institute benefits, substantial debts, and unsuccessful efforts to obtain help from relatives. Shakib opposed the request, disputed Tarabshi’s account of his finances, and argued that the proposed appeal had little prospect of success.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Ron Goldstein denied the exemption. He explained that an applicant must cumulatively establish financial inability through complete and current evidence and demonstrate meaningful prospects of success. The applicant must also show an inability to raise the security with assistance from close associates.
Although Tarabshi submitted National Insurance Institute records and a list of open enforcement proceedings, he provided no bank or credit-card statements or comparable evidence presenting a complete picture of his income and expenses. His account of seeking family assistance was conclusory, did not identify the relatives approached, and was unsupported by documentation. He also failed to explain how he financed his legal representation. Because the financial showing was insufficient, the registrar found it unnecessary to assess the merits of the proposed appeal.
The registrar also refused the requested extension through November 30, emphasizing that security ordinarily must be deposited near the commencement of an appellate proceeding and that full payment is a condition for further processing. Tarabshi was nevertheless given until September 24, 2026, to deposit the security, failing which the proceeding could be dismissed without further notice. No costs were awarded on the exemption motion.
Key Takeaways
- An exemption from appellate security requires both a fully documented inability to pay and meaningful prospects of success.
- Applicants should provide comprehensive, current financial records and specific evidence that they cannot obtain assistance from close relatives or associates.
- Security must ordinarily be deposited promptly; an appeal may be dismissed without further notice if the applicant misses the final deadline.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the demanding evidentiary standard applied to requests for relief from security for costs in Israeli appellate proceedings. General assertions of hardship, even when accompanied by proof of government benefits and enforcement debts, will not suffice without records presenting the applicant’s complete financial position.
The ruling is procedural only. It does not decide whether the default judgment should be set aside or whether Tarabshi should receive leave to appeal that issue.