Background
Havat Moria Ltd. sought an order directing the court registry to accept its application for permission to appeal, together with an application for exemption from or reduction of security, as filed on July 21, 2026. It also asked to submit the appeal’s exhibits through Google Drive because of asserted technical problems uploading them to the Net HaMishpat electronic filing system and the medical condition of the company’s manager.
The Court had previously extended the filing deadline to July 21, partly because of technical difficulties encountered during filing. The registry showed that the application was first submitted that day at 7:12 p.m. Under Civil Procedure Regulation 161(1)(d), an electronic filing made after 5:00 p.m. on a weekday is treated as filed on the next business day. The application was therefore deemed filed on July 22 and was late.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Moran Yahav granted an extension of time, allowing the application for permission to appeal to be accepted when entered in the registry. Although even a short delay requires special reasons under Regulation 176(b), the Registrar relied on the one-day length of the requested extension, the applicant’s assertion that it had attempted to file within the deadline but encountered technical problems and acted promptly afterward, the applicant’s earlier extension requests that reduced the respondents’ reliance interest, and the absence of any response from the respondents.
The Registrar declined to authorize submission through Google Drive because the record showed that the exhibits and other documents had already been uploaded to Net HaMishpat on several dates. The registry was directed to remove an earlier affidavit after a current affidavit verified in Israel had been submitted. The requests concerning the filing fee and security were moot because the fee had been paid and the security deposited. The request for an expanded panel was rejected because an application for permission to appeal is heard by a single judge, subject to the assigned judge’s statutory authority to direct otherwise. Requests concerning the scope of a response and an in-person hearing were left to the ordinary course because permission to appeal had not yet been granted. No costs were awarded.
Key Takeaways
- An electronic court filing submitted after 5:00 p.m. is treated as filed on the next business day and may therefore be untimely.
- Even a one-day delay requires special reasons, but the court may consider the short delay, a party’s asserted timely filing attempt and technical difficulties, prompt corrective action, prior notice of an intended appeal, and the opposing party’s lack of response.
- Granting an extension to file does not grant permission to appeal or entitle the applicant to special procedures for exhibits, briefing, a hearing, or panel composition.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Israel’s electronic-filing cutoff can determine timeliness even when a document is transmitted on the calendar date of the deadline. Practitioners should account for the 5:00 p.m. rule and promptly seek relief if technical difficulties delay filing.
It also illustrates the limited character of registry-stage relief: the Registrar allowed the late application to enter the docket but did not decide the merits of the requested appeal or alter the usual procedures governing its consideration.