Background
Sidi Klein filed a petition for leave to appeal a judgment of the Central-Lod District Court (Judge S. Geller) dated November 18, 2025, which had dismissed her appeal of procedural rulings issued by Registrar-Judge G. Lubinsky-Ziv in May 2025. Those lower rulings had denied Klein’s request for an extension of time to appeal a Petah Tikva Magistrates Court judgment from October 21, 2024, in which a claim for dissolution of co-ownership (partition) of real property — the property in which Klein resides — had been granted against her.
Together with her petition for leave to appeal, Klein filed a motion requesting (1) a full waiver of the court filing fee and (2) an exemption from the obligation to deposit a security for the respondents’ potential costs. She alleged significant financial and medical hardship, stating that she is unemployed, receives income-support, disability, and old-age benefits from the National Insurance Institute, owns no assets, savings, or bank account, and carries debts subject to enforcement proceedings. The respondents filed no response to the motion.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Yahav denied the full fee waiver but reduced the fee to a nominal 500 NIS, payable by June 22, 2026 (with the proceedings liable to be struck out automatically upon non-payment). The court applied the established two-pronged test for fee waivers: the applicant must (i) demonstrate genuine financial incapacity through a full and current factual record and (ii) show sufficient prospects of success on the merits. Citing Bagatz 4934/14, Gornstein v. Knesset of Israel (July 21, 2014), the court found that Klein’s evidence fell short on both counts: she attached only a single debt notice from Bezeq telecommunications and National Insurance benefit certificates, providing no documentation of her other alleged debts, living expenses, or medical condition.
The court also noted — expressly with caution and without finality — that the prospects of success appeared low, given the procedural history and the narrowly restrictive standards governing leave-to-appeal applications that reach a third tier of review. Nevertheless, taking into account that Klein’s sworn affidavit was not entirely without substance, that the absence of a bank account or property created a structural difficulty in producing supporting documentation, the nature of the underlying proceedings, and the fact that she is unrepresented, the court chose to exercise its discretion and fix the fee at a very modest 500 NIS rather than dismiss the motion outright.
On the security deposit, the court granted a full exemption solely because the respondents had not filed any response to the motion. No costs order was made.
Key Takeaways
- A fee-waiver applicant must satisfy two cumulative conditions: demonstrated financial incapacity supported by comprehensive, up-to-date documentation, and sufficient prospects of success; bare assertions or affidavits alone are insufficient.
- Where documentation is sparse but the applicant is unrepresented and faces a structural difficulty in gathering evidence (e.g., no bank account), the court may exercise discretion to set a reduced rather than a full fee rather than dismiss the application entirely.
- Failure by respondents to reply to a security-deposit exemption motion may, of itself, be sufficient ground for granting the exemption.
- In third-tier leave-to-appeal proceedings, the already restrictive merits standard weighs against a finding of sufficient prospects required for a fee waiver.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the balancing act Israeli courts perform when evaluating fee-waiver motions from impecunious, unrepresented litigants. While the court adhered to established doctrine requiring substantive evidentiary support, it softened the outcome by reducing rather than waiving the fee, signalling judicial awareness that indigent self-represented parties may face a practical “catch-22” — they lack documentation precisely because they lack the resources and institutional relationships that generate it.
The case also serves as a practical reminder for litigants and practitioners: motions for financial relief must be accompanied by the fullest possible documentation — bank statements, debt certificates, medical records, and expense evidence — and the absence of respondent opposition, while sufficient for a security exemption, does not independently cure evidentiary deficiencies on the fee-waiver prong.