Background
The appellant challenged an October 31, 2024 judgment of the Haifa District Court that summarily dismissed its application to certify a class action. The District Court also ordered the appellant and its counsel to pay costs to respondents 1–6. The proceeding was one of numerous actions filed by the appellant’s counsel concerning the same issue, all of which had been summarily dismissed.
The appellant first sought to withdraw the appeal on September 3, 2025, on the condition that no costs be awarded. After respondents 1–6 agreed to dismissal but requested costs, the appellant withdrew that request, which was removed from the docket on September 15, 2025. In a separately dated judgment issued September 4, 2025, Ben Shoshan, CA 533/23, the Supreme Court disposed of another appeal brought by the same counsel concerning the same issue and imposed NIS 35,000 in costs. On June 30, 2026, after respondents 1–6 had filed their appellate responses, the appellant again sought dismissal, citing a renewed assessment of whether continuing the appeal was worthwhile and the postponement of the hearing.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Moran Yahav ordered the appeal dismissed with the parties’ consent. Although respondents 1–4 argued that the appeal should instead be rejected under Civil Procedure Regulation 148(b), the Registrar found it unnecessary to decide that issue at the proceeding’s current stage.
The Registrar ordered both the appellant and its counsel to pay respondents 1–6. She relied on the advanced procedural stage, the appeal’s pendency for more than a year and a half, the respondents’ completed appellate submissions, the appellant’s abandonment of its earlier dismissal request when costs were sought, and counsel’s filing of numerous substantially indistinguishable proceedings concerning the same issue. Because the respondents did not itemize or document their expenses, the appellant was ordered to pay each of respondents 1–6 NIS 1,000, totaling NIS 6,000, while its counsel was ordered to pay each NIS 750, totaling NIS 4,500.
The appellant’s NIS 6,000 obligation was to be paid from its court deposit, with the balance returned subject to confirmation that no legal impediment existed. The filing fee was also to be refunded after deduction of the amount prescribed by Item 33 of the applicable court-fees regulations, and the hearing scheduled for August 2, 2027 was canceled.
Key Takeaways
- A party that voluntarily discontinues a proceeding without obtaining relief is generally expected to reimburse opponents for costs caused by the proceeding, although that presumption may be rebutted.
- Costs depend particularly on whether the opposing parties performed work and incurred expenses warranting compensation; failure to document the amount of those expenses may limit the award.
- The court may consider repeated, substantially indistinguishable litigation and the timing and history of withdrawal requests when allocating costs between a party and its counsel.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that voluntary dismissal does not ordinarily provide a cost-free exit after respondents have invested resources in an appeal. A litigant seeking to rebut a costs award must address why the proceeding was justified and why its discontinuance should not shift expenses.
It also illustrates the personal financial exposure counsel may face when repeatedly pursuing substantially indistinguishable claims, while showing that respondents seeking compensation should substantiate their actual litigation expenses.