Background
Bat Sheva Rand sought leave to appeal a Tel Aviv–Jaffa District Court judgment dismissing two appeals without costs pursuant to the parties’ agreements, which had been approved by the insolvency court. In the Supreme Court, she requested exemption from both the filing fee and the requirement to deposit security.
The trustee of Rand’s assets sought summary dismissal, arguing that she had commenced the proceeding without authorization from the insolvency court. Rand also asserted that she and her children lived on a National Insurance Institute disability allowance, that she owned no property and could not obtain loans, and that her financial and medical circumstances prevented her from paying the required sums.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Moran Yahav declined to dismiss the proceeding. Although the possibility of pursuing a Supreme Court proceeding apparently had not been specifically presented to the insolvency court, the wording of that court’s authorization was not facially limited to an appeal before the District Court. Because Rand had financed the lower-court proceeding without using assets of the insolvency estate, the balance favored permitting her to bring the present proceeding. The trustee remained free to seek a contrary interpretation from the insolvency court.
The Registrar denied a complete filing-fee exemption because Rand had not provided a full and current evidentiary record of financial incapacity. Among other deficiencies, she omitted details of her expenses, recent six-month bank statements, credit-card statements, medical documentation, and an adequate explanation of how her representation would be financed; her supporting affidavit also lacked its final, signed page. Prior exemptions and the existence of insolvency proceedings did not automatically establish entitlement to another exemption. The Registrar also cautiously observed that the proceeding did not appear to have strong prospects, given its procedural history and the restrictive standard governing third-instance review. Nevertheless, considering Rand’s apparent financial hardship and the absence of a costs award below, the Registrar reduced the fee to NIS 800, payable by September 10, 2026. Because the respondent filed no response to the security request, the Registrar waived security on that ground alone and made no costs order.
Key Takeaways
- Authorization from an insolvency court may permit further appellate proceedings when its language is not expressly limited and the litigation is not financed from the insolvency estate.
- A fee applicant must prove inability to pay with complete, current evidence; prior exemptions and insolvency status are only relevant evidence, not automatic grounds for relief.
- Even when full fee relief is unwarranted, demonstrated financial hardship may justify reducing the fee, while an unanswered request to waive security may be granted on that basis alone.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the separate inquiries governing permission to litigate during insolvency, exemption from filing fees, and security for costs. It also underscores that access-to-courts concerns do not relieve an applicant of the obligation to submit detailed, current, and properly executed financial evidence.
For parties seeking third-instance review in Israel, the ruling further signals that the Supreme Court may consider the proceeding’s limited apparent prospects when deciding fee relief, even before addressing whether leave to appeal should ultimately be granted.