Background
The petitioners asked the Court to require the respondents to withdraw their objection to petitioner 1 leaving Gaza through the Rafah Crossing to receive life-saving medical treatment. They also sought written confirmation that the objection had been removed.
On September 9, 2026, the respondents confirmed in writing that they did not object to petitioner 1 leaving for Egypt through Rafah. The petitioners agreed on September 22 to have the petition struck, but sought their legal costs, arguing that they had exhausted available procedures, filed without delay, and obtained the requested relief only because of the petition. They also asked the Court to direct the respondents to notify the World Health Organization that the security restriction had been removed.
The respondents argued that any costs award should be modest because they approved the request promptly and without a hearing. They attributed the delay to the volume and complexity of Gaza transit requests, which required detailed security checks and coordination among multiple authorities.
The Court’s Holding
The Court struck the petition because the respondents’ written confirmation had supplied the requested relief, rendering the proceeding moot. It nevertheless ordered the respondents to pay the petitioners NIS 2,000 in costs and directed that the filing fee be refunded in accordance with the applicable regulations.
Applying the factors governing costs in High Court petitions, the Court found that the petitioners had properly exhausted prior procedures, had not delayed, and apparently needed to file the petition to obtain a response. Moderation was warranted, however, because the respondents showed that the delay resulted from the matter’s complexity and the large volume of applications, rather than from a specific defect in their conduct.
The Court declined to consider the request for an order requiring notice to the World Health Organization. The petition had run its course, and the governing medical-evacuation procedure had neither been challenged nor supported by the necessary factual and legal record. The petitioners could bring an appropriate future petition if a concrete problem arose in applying that procedure.
Key Takeaways
- When the government grants the requested relief during proceedings, the High Court may strike the petition as moot rather than adjudicate its merits.
- A moot petition may still support a costs award where prior procedures were exhausted, the filing was timely, and the petition appears to have prompted the requested response.
- Administrative complexity and a high volume of security-screening requests may justify reducing costs even when the petitioner receives relief after filing.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the practical distinction between striking a petition after relief has been obtained and rejecting the petition on its merits. It also confirms that petitioners may recover costs when litigation was reasonably necessary to secure an administrative response.
At the same time, the Court limited the proceeding to the relief originally sought and left any challenge concerning communications with the World Health Organization or the medical-evacuation procedure for a properly supported future petition.