Background
The applicants brought a damages action in the Jerusalem District Court alleging that, on April 17, 2023, the first respondent attacked them with a knife. The first respondent was residing in a hostel operated by the second respondent. After the parties submitted conflicting medical opinions and failed to agree on disability percentages, the District Court appointed experts in pain medicine and psychiatry under Regulation 88 of the Civil Procedure Regulations 2018.
The applicants later reported difficulties arranging payment to the experts and objected that the psychiatric examinations had been scheduled only for November 2026. They asked the District Court to issue directions and replace the psychiatric expert, arguing that the expert’s conduct was delaying the litigation. The District Court declined, reasoning that the expert had been selected as suitable and that the delay was not exceptionally long. It denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration on the same grounds.
The applicants sought leave to appeal, contending that the expert’s rigid timetable prevented the fair and efficient conduct of the proceedings and caused an injustice. They did not challenge his professional qualifications but argued that his administration of the appointment impeded compliance with the District Court’s orders and delayed the case.
The Court’s Holding
President Yitzhak Amit denied leave to appeal without requesting a response. Decisions concerning whether to appoint a different or additional expert are quintessential procedural rulings within the trial court’s core discretion, and an appellate court will intervene only in exceptional cases. This case did not meet that standard.
The Court acknowledged that a court-appointed expert must perform the assignment “efficiently and according to the timetables ordered by the court … in order to assist the court in conducting proper and fair proceedings.” It also recognized that an examination in November 2026 would likely be followed by additional time needed to collect medical materials and prepare the opinion.
Nevertheless, terminating a court-appointed expert’s appointment is a significant step, even where the expert has not yet begun substantive work. Without minimizing the applicants’ concerns, the Court found no exceptional inactivity by the psychiatric expert that justified replacement. The application was therefore denied, with no order for costs because no response had been requested.
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts have broad discretion over the appointment and replacement of court-appointed medical experts.
- Scheduling and administrative delays justify appellate intervention only in exceptional circumstances, such as sufficiently serious inactivity by the expert.
- An expert’s obligation to work efficiently and follow court-imposed timetables does not make replacement automatic whenever an examination is scheduled months later.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms the Supreme Court’s restrained approach to interlocutory challenges involving court-appointed experts. Litigants seeking replacement must show more than inconvenience, administrative difficulty, or an examination date that prolongs the proceedings; they must establish circumstances exceptional enough to overcome the trial court’s procedural discretion.
For parties litigating medical injury and disability issues in Israel, the ruling underscores that concerns about an expert’s timetable should ordinarily be managed in the trial court. Appellate relief will remain rare unless the delay or inactivity is sufficiently extreme to undermine the proper and fair conduct of the case.