Background
On February 5, 2026, the respondent, S. Shlomo Car Ltd., filed a claim in the Magistrates’ Court at Rehovot (case no. תאד”מ 18016-02-26) seeking damages arising from a road accident that occurred in Kfar Tavor, a village located in the Northern District of Israel. Both the respondent’s driver and the petitioner’s (IDI Insurance’s) driver reside in Kfar Tavor. The respondent’s choice of Rehovot was apparently grounded in the location of IDI Insurance’s place of business in the Central District.
IDI Insurance petitioned the Supreme Court under section 78 of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 5744-1984, requesting that proceedings be transferred from the Rehovot Magistrates’ Court to one of the Magistrates’ Courts in the Northern District. The respondent opposed the transfer on three grounds: (1) IDI had not shown that Rehovot lacked local jurisdiction; (2) the petition did not specify which Northern District court should receive the case; and (3) the petitioner had not clearly demonstrated that the preponderance of connecting factors favored the Northern District.
Procedurally, the original petition was filed without a supporting affidavit. Justice Kasher allowed the petitioner, as a matter of grace, to file a supplementary affidavit, which was submitted on June 22, 2026, the same day as the decision.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Yechiel Kasher granted the petition and ordered the case transferred to a Magistrates’ Court in the Northern District, to be assigned in accordance with the directives of the President of the Northern District Magistrates’ Courts. The court rejected the respondent’s argument that a section 78 transfer requires an absence of local jurisdiction in the originating court. On the contrary, the court reaffirmed that section 78 is designed precisely to allow venue transfers even where the originating court holds valid local jurisdiction — the purpose of the provision is to identify the court with the strongest substantive connection to the dispute.
Applying that standard, Justice Kasher found that the accumulation of connecting factors pointed clearly to Kfar Tavor and the Northern District: the accident occurred there, and both drivers involved are residents of that locality. The only link to the Central District was the formal one of IDI Insurance’s registered place of business, which the court characterized as predominantly formal in nature. Consistent with prior Supreme Court rulings, the court held that where substantive connections to another district predominate over a merely formal connection to the originating court’s district, transfer is appropriate.
The court further ordered the respondent to pay the petitioner’s costs in the amount of NIS 2,000.
Key Takeaways
- Section 78 of the Courts Law empowers the Supreme Court to transfer venue even when the originating court has valid local jurisdiction — the absence of local jurisdiction is not a prerequisite for transfer.
- Israeli courts apply a “preponderance of connecting factors” test: where the accident location, the parties’ drivers, and witnesses all tie a case to a particular district, that substantive nexus will generally outweigh a plaintiff’s choice of forum based solely on the defendant’s place of business.
- A formal connection to the chosen forum — such as a corporate defendant’s registered office — carries less weight than the geographic concentration of the underlying events and the witnesses likely to testify about them.
- Failure to attach a supporting affidavit to a section 78 petition is a correctable deficiency; the court may, in its discretion, grant leave to supplement the record rather than dismiss outright.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a consistent line of Supreme Court authority confirming that Israeli venue rules are not merely formal obstacles but serve the substantive goal of adjudicating disputes in the forum most closely connected to the underlying events. Insurers and corporate defendants who are sued far from the scene of an accident solely because of their principal place of business have a viable path to transfer, provided they can demonstrate a clear geographic nexus to an alternative forum.
For practitioners, the ruling is a useful reminder that venue challenges under section 78 should be accompanied by an affidavit establishing the relevant factual connections, and that the petition should identify the specific target court or district. While the court here allowed a late-filed affidavit as a matter of grace, relying on that indulgence is a risky litigation strategy.