Background
Maher Khattab appealed a July 26, 2026 judgment of the Jerusalem District Court, sitting as a Court for Administrative Affairs, which dismissed his petition and ordered him to pay the respondents NIS 10,000 in costs. The underlying proceeding concerned the planned demolition of a structure in which Khattab claimed property rights.
Alongside his appeal, Khattab requested a complete waiver, or alternatively a reduction, of the security required to cover the respondents’ potential appellate costs. He asserted that he was a retired teacher living on a Palestinian pension, remained responsible for some expenses of his ten children, and lacked additional regular income, savings, or readily realizable assets. The respondents argued that he had not fully documented his assets and expenses, explained why relatives could not assist him, or disclosed how he financed private legal representation.
In a prior interim order, the Supreme Court directed the respondents to answer Khattab’s application for temporary relief and barred demolition pending further decision, except for clear and urgent security reasons. It also ordered that security already deposited in the lower court remain there temporarily.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Moran Yahav denied Khattab’s request for a complete exemption but granted partial relief, setting the appellate security at NIS 7,500. The registrar explained that a full exemption requires both a complete and current evidentiary showing of financial inability and a demonstration of meaningful prospects sufficient to justify dispensing with security.
Khattab did not make the required financial showing. He submitted only one apparent salary or pension slip from March 2026 and bank-account information covering January 1 through August 20, 2026. He did not adequately detail his expenses, document efforts to obtain help from people close to him, or explain how his private legal representation was being funded. The NIS 10,000 costs award entered against him below also weighed against granting complete relief.
Nevertheless, the registrar found a reduction appropriate in light of Khattab’s sworn assertions about his finances, the nature of the proceeding, the fact that the appeal was one as of right, and the imbalance of power between the parties. The decision did not resolve the merits of the appeal or the separate request for temporary relief.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant seeking exemption from security must provide complete, current evidence of financial inability and show meaningful prospects warranting a waiver.
- The applicant must address available assistance from family or others and explain apparent expenditures, including the funding of private counsel.
- Even when the evidence does not justify a full waiver, the court may reduce security based on sworn financial claims, the proceeding’s nature, the right to appeal, and disparities between the parties.
Why It Matters
The ruling illustrates the evidentiary detail Israeli appellate courts expect from litigants seeking relief from security requirements. General claims of hardship, even when supported by an affidavit, may be insufficient without comprehensive documentation of income, assets, expenses, outside assistance, and litigation funding.
At the same time, the decision shows that security may be calibrated to preserve practical access to appellate review, particularly in an appeal as of right involving demolition and a substantial power imbalance between an individual and government authorities.