Background
Yigal Saada and Adnei Yigal Ltd. were formerly partners with Amnon Twito in real property and a development project built on it. After the parties agreed to dissolve their co-ownership in proceedings concluded in 2016, they brought competing claims alleging that they owed money to one another.
On March 8, 2026, the Central District Court in Lod dismissed the applicants’ claims and most of Twito’s counterclaim, finding that neither side had carried its burden of proof and observing that “the impression is that the parties had a broader relationship, most of which was not disclosed in this proceeding.” The court nevertheless awarded Twito NIS 1,438,600, plus shekel-denominated interest, on a component of the counterclaim that the applicants had admitted. After receiving an extension because they changed counsel, the applicants appealed and sought to stay payment. Both sides rejected the Supreme Court’s proposal that the entire judgment amount be deposited with the court pending appeal.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Ofer Grosskopf granted only a partial stay. The applicants were ordered to pay Twito half of the judgment by August 16, 2026. Payment of the other half was stayed on condition that the applicants deposit that amount with the court by the same date, either in funds or through an autonomous bank guarantee. If they failed to provide the security, the partial stay would lapse.
The Court balanced considerations pointing in both directions. Against a stay were the general rule permitting a prevailing party to enjoy the judgment, the reluctance to stay monetary awards, the fact that the award rested on the applicants’ own admission and was not challenged in their appeal, and the difficulty of overturning findings grounded principally in fact and credibility. The applicants also waited until after the payment deadline, paid nothing, and failed to disclose that enforcement proceedings had begun. Supporting limited relief were the judgment’s substantial size, Twito’s status as a private individual, and the absence of an immediate need for the money. Requiring security for half the award adequately addressed the risk associated with recovering that portion if the appeal succeeded.
Key Takeaways
- A monetary judgment ordinarily remains enforceable during an appeal, particularly when the awarded amount is not itself challenged.
- Delay, nonpayment, and failure to disclose pending enforcement proceedings weigh against a stay.
- A court may protect both sides by requiring partial payment to the judgment creditor and securing the stayed balance through a court deposit or autonomous bank guarantee.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates Israel’s fact-sensitive approach to stays of monetary judgments. Even when the amount is substantial and repayment by an individual creditor may present practical concerns, those factors do not automatically justify withholding the entire award.
For appellate practitioners, the ruling also underscores the importance of prompt filing, full disclosure of enforcement activity, and aligning the requested stay with the issues actually contested on appeal.