Background
The applicants, charitable associations and a company registered in England, claimed to be the heirs of Victorine Bos. They sued in the Haifa District Court over real property in Kiryat Ata that allegedly had been taken from Bos, transferred to heirs of another decedent, Victoria Bosso, and sold to another defendant.
Most of the defendant heirs lived abroad. The applicants served the complaint on defendant 1 and sought recognition of that delivery as valid service on the foreign defendants, arguing that she represented them in Israel regarding the inheritance and property. The District Court accepted service for some defendants but rejected it for defendants 6 and 7 because they had not granted her powers of attorney and for defendants 9 and 10 because evidence indicated that they had died. It later denied reconsideration and warned that the action might be dismissed if the deceased defendants’ heirs were not joined and served.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal the first decision, treated the application as an appeal, and allowed it in part. Although the application was filed four days late, the Court extended the deadline because the delay was short, resulted from a not-unreasonable interpretation of emergency rules applicable to Haifa courts, and concerned an issue materially affecting the litigation.
The Court reversed the District Court’s ruling as to defendants 6 and 7. Under Regulation 163(c), an Israeli representative need not be a formally appointed agent. Defendant 1 had maintained a long-term representative relationship with defendants 6 and 7 concerning the same property, had described herself in Family Court as their representative in Israel, had acted in inheritance and property proceedings, and had helped distribute sale proceeds to their accounts. Service on her therefore constituted valid service on them.
As to defendants 9 and 10, the foreign death certificates had not been properly authenticated, and the record showed defendant 1 acting for them after their reported dates of death. The Court nevertheless did not declare service valid because a deceased person lacks legal capacity to be sued. It remanded for the District Court to determine whether they were deceased and, if necessary, to permit joinder and service of the appropriate heirs. The Court awarded the applicants ₪5,000 in costs.
Key Takeaways
- For service under Regulation 163(c), a foreign defendant’s representative in Israel need not hold a formal power of attorney.
- A sustained representative relationship concerning the property at issue can make service on the Israeli representative effective for a foreign defendant.
- When a named defendant may have died, the court must determine that issue and identify the proper parties; service cannot cure the lack of legal capacity of a deceased person.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes a practical, relationship-based inquiry when determining whether an Israeli representative may receive process for a foreign defendant. Formal agency documents are not dispositive when the evidence shows continuing representation in Israel concerning the very matter in dispute.
It also distinguishes defective proof of death from valid service. Before threatening dismissal, a court should resolve whether named defendants are deceased and, where necessary, allow the claimant to join and serve their heirs through legally authorized methods.