Background
Bnei Sakhnin was scheduled to host Maccabi Haifa on May 16, 2022, in an Israeli Premier League football match that could have resulted in Maccabi Haifa winning the championship. Because of a disciplinary sanction, the match was moved from Bnei Sakhnin’s home stadium to HaMoshava Stadium in Petah Tikva. Police required approximately 180 qualified stewards and security personnel, but only about 100 appeared, some without appropriate training. Police cancelled the match shortly before kickoff, after thousands of ticket holders had arrived or begun traveling to the stadium.
Two supporters sought certification of a class action alleging that, despite knowing it was struggling to satisfy the security requirements and that noncompliance would prevent the match, Bnei Sakhnin assured the relevant authorities that it would meet those requirements. They asserted consumer-protection, negligence, and contract claims for travel and related expenses, wasted time, and emotional distress. The club had refunded ticket prices, so those amounts were not claimed.
The Haifa District Court certified the action. It found a reasonable possibility that common questions—particularly whether the club’s conduct constituted negligence or breach of contract—would be resolved for the class. Bnei Sakhnin sought leave to appeal, arguing that police and football authorities controlled the cancellation, that the club had done everything possible, and that the alleged harms were not compensable.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Ofer Grosskopf denied leave to appeal without requesting a response. He stressed that interlocutory review of class-certification decisions depends principally on the proceeding’s economic consequences for the defendant, the procedural benefit of immediate review, and, in exceptional cases, obvious defects in the certification decision. Bnei Sakhnin did not establish any of those grounds. The burdens ordinarily associated with defending a class action were insufficient, and the disputed questions of responsibility and loss remained suitable for resolution in the merits proceeding.
The Court found no obvious error in the District Court’s preliminary assessment of responsibility. As the home team, Bnei Sakhnin was responsible under the governing regulations for complying with police requirements. If, as alleged, it repeatedly promised compliance but failed to satisfy the security conditions, its acts or omissions may have caused the last-minute cancellation even though police formally made the cancellation decision. Whether that conduct breached a legal duty remained an issue for trial.
The Court did not decide whether emotional distress from the cancellation was compensable in a class action. It held that the plausible claims for monetary losses—including travel, parking, accommodation, and related expenses—were independently sufficient at the certification stage. Refunding ticket prices did not categorically bar recovery for additional losses caused by a last-minute cancellation and an alleged breach of duty. Because no response had been requested, the Court made no costs order.
Key Takeaways
- Leave to appeal a class-certification decision will not be granted merely because the defendant disputes the lower court’s preliminary findings on liability and damages.
- An organizer may potentially bear responsibility for a last-minute cancellation even when a public authority formally cancels the event, if the organizer’s failure to satisfy required conditions caused that decision.
- A ticket refund does not automatically extinguish claims for separate monetary losses such as travel, parking, accommodation, or lost working time.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves a certified consumer class action while carefully avoiding a final ruling on Bnei Sakhnin’s liability or the class members’ damages. It confirms that contested factual questions about who caused an event’s cancellation ordinarily should be resolved in the underlying class proceeding rather than through an interlocutory appeal.
More broadly, the Court distinguished advance cancellations—where refunding the ticket price may often make purchasers whole—from last-minute cancellations that may generate unavoidable additional expenses. Unless the legislature creates a special statutory regime for cancelled sporting and cultural events, such claims remain governed by ordinary contract, tort, and consumer-protection law.