Background
The appeal was originally scheduled for March 2027. At the parties’ joint and urgent request, the hearing was advanced to November 9, 2026, because all parties agreed that the appeal required prompt determination and had identified accumulating harm from delay.
The appellants later asked to postpone the hearing or move it to December 2026. They said their counsel would be abroad on a fundraising trip planned approximately six months earlier, and that one of those lawyers—who had represented them for years in the lower court and was designated to argue the appeal—would therefore be unavailable. After being advised that rescheduling would likely push the hearing to late in the first quarter of 2027 because of the Court’s exceptionally congested calendar, the appellants maintained their request. Several respondents opposed it.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Ron Goldstein denied the request and left the November 9, 2026 hearing in place. He concluded that a delay of several months would frustrate the purpose of the parties’ earlier agreement to expedite the appeal, particularly given their prior assertions that continued delay was causing accumulating harm.
The Registrar held that counsel’s planned absence did not, by itself, justify postponement. The appellants had not clearly and systematically explained why another lawyer at the same firm—who appeared to be a partner and head of litigation, had signed the pleadings, and could therefore be presumed familiar with the case—could not represent them. They accordingly failed to show that no “reasonable alternative solution” was available under Regulation 175A(d) of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 2018. Applying Regulation 175A(a), which states that, as a rule, a scheduled hearing should proceed on its assigned date, the Registrar found insufficient justification for an adjournment. No costs were awarded.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking to postpone a hearing must address whether another reasonable arrangement can preserve the scheduled date.
- The unavailability of preferred counsel may be insufficient when another lawyer familiar with the case can potentially appear.
- A court may weigh the parties’ earlier request for expedition, the harm attributed to delay, opposing parties’ positions, and calendar congestion against an adjournment.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Israeli Supreme Court’s application of Regulation 175A’s presumption that hearings should proceed as scheduled. When postponement would cause a substantial delay, parties must provide a concrete explanation showing why alternative representation or another practical solution is unavailable.