Background
B. Amin Motors Ltd. and related applicants brought a roughly NIS 50 million damages action against Moshe Bar Shilton in July 2023, alleging fraud, misappropriation, and asset stripping affecting a group of German companies. The Central District Court accepted Bar Shilton’s motion to cancel permission for service outside Israel and ruled that Germany, rather than Israel, was the appropriate forum. On April 21, 2026, the District Court registrar therefore dismissed the action.
The applicants initially treated the dismissal as an “other decision” of a registrar and appealed to the Central District Court on May 10, 2026. Bar Shilton argued that the dismissal terminated the proceeding and was therefore a registrar’s judgment appealable directly to the Supreme Court. The District Court ultimately agreed and dismissed the registrar appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
After Bar Shilton first raised that objection, the applicants sought an extension of time to appeal to the Supreme Court. They characterized their choice of forum as a reasonable, good-faith legal mistake, noting that some district courts had previously heard registrar appeals involving forum non conveniens rulings. Bar Shilton opposed the extension, arguing that counsel’s procedural error was not a special reason for relief and that he was entitled to rely on finality.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Ron Goldstein held that an order dismissing an action for forum non conveniens is a “judgment,” not an “other decision.” Unlike dismissal for nonpayment of a fee or a plaintiff’s failure to appear, a forum non conveniens dismissal is not based on a merely technical default and cannot be cured simply by refiling in Israel. It conclusively ends the Israeli proceeding, requires the plaintiff to litigate abroad, and materially affects access to the courts and the parties’ relative positions. Under section 96(a) of the Courts Law, a non-senior registrar’s judgment is appealed as a judgment of the court in which the registrar serves; the proper appellate court here was therefore the Supreme Court.
The Court nevertheless found, “with difficulty,” special reasons to extend the deadline. Careful analysis should have led the applicants to the correct appellate route, and they did not show substantial efforts to resolve the issue beforehand. Still, prior district-court cases had entertained registrar appeals from forum non conveniens decisions; the applicants promptly attempted to appeal; Bar Shilton had early notice that they contested the dismissal; the delay was short; and the proposed proceeding was an appeal as of right, giving added weight to access to justice.
The Court extended the deadline through August 13, 2026, conditioned on the applicants first paying Bar Shilton NIS 5,000 in costs. Any appeal filed must disclose the extension at its outset and attach the extension decision.
Key Takeaways
- A registrar’s order dismissing an action for forum non conveniens is a judgment because it ends the litigation in Israel, even though it does not adjudicate the underlying merits.
- Such a judgment by a District Court registrar is appealable directly to the Supreme Court, rather than through a registrar appeal within the District Court.
- A represented party’s mistake of law ordinarily does not justify late filing, but a reasonably arguable procedural mistake may support a short extension when the party acted promptly, reliance on finality is limited, and an appeal as of right is at stake.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies the appellate classification of forum non conveniens dismissals in Israel. It distinguishes those consequential rulings from technical dismissals for nonpayment of fees or nonappearance, which generally remain “other decisions” requiring permission to appeal.
For litigators, the ruling identifies both the correct appellate forum and the limited circumstances in which filing in the wrong court may be excused. Prompt action and clear notice of an intent to appeal can reduce prejudice, but counsel should not treat a routine direction to obtain a response as judicial approval of the chosen procedural route.