Background
Liron Gehanima Cohen sought exemptions from court fees and security deposit requirements in a civil case against The Open University. On May 23, 2026, the registrar rejected his request for fee waiver but partially granted his security deposit waiver, reducing the deposit from a higher amount to 7,500 NIS, accounting for his financial hardship arising from medical conditions. Cohen then sought reconsideration of the May decision. On June 27, 2026, the registrar rejected the reconsideration request but allowed installment payments for the security deposit. Cohen appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the registrar erred and that documents supporting his financial inability were only obtained in June, making it impossible to include them in his original request.
The appeal also challenged the registrar’s decision as inadequately considering his medical condition and financial circumstances, and argued that the denial of full relief violated his right of access to the courts.
The Court’s Holding
Justice David Mintz rejected the appeal in full. The Court held that registrars enjoy broad discretion in determining fee and security deposit exemptions, and the Supreme Court will only intervene in exceptional cases. The case before it did not qualify as exceptional. The registrar’s May 23 decision was sound and reflected appropriate consideration of Cohen’s circumstances: though she found he had not adequately established his financial inability or explained why he could not seek help from family members, she nonetheless granted partial relief by reducing the security deposit and demonstrating flexibility toward his position.
On Cohen’s contention that documents were unavailable until June, the Court found this claim factually incorrect. Examining the documents submitted in the reconsideration request, the Court determined they were actually issued in April and May, and thus could have been included in the original application. The Court affirmed that those seeking exemptions bear the burden of presenting a complete factual foundation and exhausting all arguments in their initial request, not through later reconsideration applications. While some unexplained cash transfers and credits appeared in the account statements Cohen submitted, the registrar reasonably found these documents did not establish changed circumstances warranting reconsideration. The registrar’s decision to allow installment payments constituted further accommodation beyond what was required.
Key Takeaways
- Registrars have broad, deferential discretion in ruling on fee and security deposit exemptions; appellate review is limited to exceptional cases.
- Applicants seeking exemptions must present complete factual support and all arguments in the original request and may not rely on reconsideration applications to cure deficiencies in the initial submission.
- Procedural rules governing fee and security deposit exemptions reflect an appropriate balance between access to courts and broader systemic considerations and do not constitute a barrier to access where properly applied.
- Claims of newly obtained documents must be substantiated; courts will verify the actual dates of issuance.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the standards governing fee and security deposit waivers in Israeli civil litigation. While the Supreme Court acknowledges that access to courts is a fundamental principle, the ruling makes clear that procedural requirements for demonstrating financial hardship exist for legitimate systemic reasons. Litigants cannot use reconsideration requests as a second chance to augment a deficient initial application with newly located documents.
The decision has practical significance for self-represented litigants and those with limited means, establishing that they must gather and organize supporting documentation thoroughly before filing initial exemption requests. At the same time, the Court’s affirmance of the registrar’s discretion to reduce deposits and allow installment arrangements—despite gaps in Cohen’s evidence—signals that registrars retain flexibility to extend reasonable accommodations based on medical or financial hardship, even where formal proof is imperfect.