Background
Karin Sapir Biton appealed an August 7, 2025 judgment of the Tel Aviv–Jaffa District Court in CC 53532-02-23. When filing the appeal, she sought exemptions from the court fee and from posting security. The Supreme Court granted the fee exemption but required security of NIS 20,000, initially due by December 28, 2025.
Over approximately nine months, the Court repeatedly extended the deadline. It also allowed Biton, with Tal Arviv’s consent, to pay the security in three installments. Biton paid the first two installments but failed to pay the third despite additional extensions. Arviv then moved to strike the appeal, while Biton requested one more extension until after the Jewish holidays.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Ron Goldstein struck the appeal under Regulation 135(c) of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 2018, which permits a court to strike an appeal or extend the deadline when an appellant fails to comply with an order to post security. The Court declined to grant another extension, emphasizing that extensions for posting appellate security are not routine and that noncompliance is a significant procedural defect.
The Court acknowledged Biton’s partial payment and the unfortunate circumstances she had cited, including circumstances concerning her counsel. It nevertheless found that those circumstances had been raised months earlier and did not justify further delay after the many opportunities already afforded. Leaving the security incomplete for an appeal filed in late November 2025 was plainly unreasonable, inconsistent with Regulation 2, and materially prejudicial to Arviv. The Court ordered no costs and permitted the first two installments to be returned to Biton, subject to the registry confirming that no legal impediment existed.
Key Takeaways
- An Israeli appellate court may strike an appeal when the appellant fails to post court-ordered security within the prescribed time.
- Repeated extensions, partial payment, and personal hardship do not necessarily justify an additional extension, particularly where the asserted circumstances were known earlier.
- Courts will weigh continued noncompliance against procedural fairness and the prejudice caused to the respondent by delaying the appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an order requiring security for an appeal is not merely administrative. Even where a court has accommodated financial or personal difficulties through numerous extensions and installment payments, prolonged failure to comply can terminate the proceeding without consideration of its merits.
For appellate practitioners, the ruling highlights the need to seek workable security arrangements promptly and then comply strictly with them. A history of judicial accommodation may ultimately weigh against, rather than support, another request for time.