Background
The order arose in two related civil appeals involving the heirs of the late Rabbi Eliezer Shlomo Schik and the late Rebbetzin Shifra Sylvia Schik, a company associated with them, and Yismach Tzadik–Breslov Community in the Galilee, a registered association. The appellants in CA 8014-05-26 notified the Court that they were changing counsel. Their former attorneys had separately sought permission to withdraw.
The appellants also requested permission to authenticate by videoconference an affidavit signed outside Israel; an order requiring the association to produce powers of attorney from every person or entity allegedly standing behind it; personal liability for the association’s committee members to provide security for costs; and an award of expenses. Questions also arose over who was properly pursuing the appeal because one grandson had previously assigned his inherited rights to The Schik Dynasty LLC, yet he had signed the power of attorney submitted with the notice.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Moran Yahav released the former attorneys from representing the relevant appellants. She denied permission to authenticate the foreign affidavit by videoconference, holding that this method was not among those permitted by Regulation 6 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 2018, and section 30 of the Evidence Ordinance [New Version], 1971.
The Registrar also refused to compel the association to submit powers of attorney from the individuals or entities whose interests it allegedly sought to advance. A registered association may conduct litigation in its own name, and the appeal had been filed by the association itself; advocating for others’ rights did not make those persons appellants. She further declined to require the association’s committee members personally to provide security because the obligation rests on the party initiating the proceeding, and the association had already deposited the required security.
Before updating the representation records, the Registrar ordered the appellants to clarify by August 19, 2026, on whose behalf CA 8014-05-26 was being pursued and to provide supporting documents and proper powers of attorney. Both sides were also directed to submit corrected opening pages identifying the parties consistently with the judgment under appeal and noting representation through the heirs where appropriate. No costs were awarded at this stage.
Key Takeaways
- An affidavit executed outside Israel must satisfy the prescribed statutory authentication methods; videoconference authentication was not accepted as one of them.
- A registered association litigating in its own name need not produce powers of attorney from every person or group whose interests its appeal may seek to protect.
- Security for appellate costs is imposed on the party initiating the proceeding, not personally on an association’s committee members where the association has already deposited security.
- A party that has assigned its underlying rights may not act as an appellant without clarification and appropriate proof of authority.
Why It Matters
The decision is a procedural ruling rather than a determination of the underlying inheritance, property, or association dispute. It clarifies the formal requirements governing foreign affidavits, representation of registered associations, and security for costs in Israeli appellate proceedings.
It also shows that the Court will require precise alignment among the judgment below, the identities of the parties on appeal, assignments of substantive rights, and counsel’s authority before allowing an appeal to proceed administratively.