Background
M.V. Investments Ltd. and Moshe Weinberg own rights in Tel Aviv real estate containing a residential building. In 2018, they entered into a combination agreement with Pegasus Holdings Ltd. Following a dispute, the petitioners purported to terminate the agreement and sued Pegasus for damages. That action was dismissed after the court held that the termination was unlawful; an appeal from that judgment remained pending before the Supreme Court.
In August 2024, Pegasus brought a NIS 10 million action against the petitioners for profits allegedly lost because of the termination. Pegasus submitted an economic opinion based on an appraisal, while the petitioners submitted an appraisal estimating damages at approximately NIS 4.3 million. During an unsuccessful mediation, the petitioners also obtained an economic opinion applying a different methodology and contending, in substance, that no compensation should be awarded.
The District Court appointed an expert, by agreement of the parties, to assess Pegasus’s alleged lost profits. It directed that the expert receive the pleadings, Pegasus’s economic opinion, and the petitioners’ appraisal, but not the petitioners’ mediation-stage economic opinion. The court explained that the excluded opinion addressed what its author considered an appropriate remedy rather than the damages Pegasus had claimed. The petitioners sought High Court review, arguing that the unequal treatment of the parties’ opinions fundamentally impaired the proceeding, and requested an interim order preventing the expert from beginning work.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court unanimously dismissed the petition without requesting a response. Even assuming that no application for permission to appeal was available, the High Court does not sit as an appellate tribunal over trial-court decisions. It may intervene in judicial decisions only in exceptionally rare circumstances, such as lack of jurisdiction or extreme arbitrariness, neither of which was present here.
The District Court acted within its authority under Regulation 88 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 2018. Decisions concerning materials given to a court-appointed expert are highly fact-specific and fall within the trial court’s broad discretion. The inability to seek immediate appellate review of certain interlocutory rulings does not permit litigants to bypass that restriction by petitioning the High Court.
The petitioners also failed to establish irreparable harm. After the expert reports, they may submit clarification questions, seek cross-examination, and potentially ask questions based on other materials. They may also challenge the significance and weight assigned to the expert’s opinion in an appeal from the final judgment. The Court additionally observed, without deciding, that it was doubtful whether an order identifying materials for a court-appointed expert was covered by the order barring permission to appeal. It dismissed both the petition and the interim-relief request, with no costs because no response had been sought.
Key Takeaways
- The High Court ordinarily will not review an interlocutory decision made by a trial court, even when immediate appellate review may be unavailable.
- High Court intervention in a judicial ruling is reserved for exceptionally rare cases involving matters such as lack of jurisdiction or extreme arbitrariness.
- Restrictions on materials supplied to a court-appointed expert generally fall within the trial court’s broad procedural discretion and may be challenged through expert questioning, cross-examination, or an appeal from the final judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the final-judgment principle in Israeli civil litigation. A statutory or regulatory limit on interlocutory appeals does not convert the High Court into an alternative appellate route for ordinary case-management rulings.
For litigators, the ruling also identifies practical safeguards when a court-appointed expert does not initially receive all materials sought by a party: clarification questions, cross-examination, submissions concerning the opinion’s weight, and—if necessary—an appeal after final judgment.