Background
Bezalel Shamchovitz filed a small-claims action against Y-Box Real Estate Ltd. in the Jerusalem Small Claims Court. The company sought transfer to the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District, arguing that the Jerusalem court lacked local jurisdiction because the company was located in Tel Aviv-Jaffa. On June 23, 2026, the Jerusalem Small Claims Court accepted that argument and transferred the case; the proceeding was assigned for an April 14, 2027 hearing in the Herzliya Small Claims Court.
Shamchovitz then applied to the Supreme Court under section 78 of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 1984, to transfer the case from Herzliya back to Jerusalem. He stated that he was 76 years old, had a recognized disability rating of 97%, and had a permanent mobility limitation of 70%. He submitted National Insurance Institute documentation and argued that attending a hearing in Herzliya would impose substantial hardship.
Y-Box opposed the application. It argued that the small-claims matter would likely conclude in one hearing, that the courts were only about 58 kilometers apart, and that Shamchovitz’s transportation difficulties could be addressed through logistical arrangements. It also asserted that a transfer would burden its representatives and witnesses.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Yechiel Kasher granted the application. The Court explained that a party seeking transfer under section 78 must show that the balance of convenience clearly favors transfer. Shamchovitz met that burden because his documented medical condition and mobility limitations made travel to Herzliya a significant hardship.
By contrast, Y-Box did not substantiate its assertion that requiring its representatives and witnesses to travel to Jerusalem would be burdensome. Its response was unsupported by an affidavit and did not explain the claimed hardship.
The Court also rejected Y-Box’s reliance on the general practice against transferring proceedings between courts less than 60 kilometers apart. It questioned whether the distance was actually below 60 kilometers because Y-Box supplied no supporting evidence, and held that Shamchovitz’s age, 97% disability rating, and 70% mobility limitation justified transfer in any event. The Court transferred Small Claims Case 14680-03-26 from Herzliya to Jerusalem and ordered Y-Box to pay Shamchovitz NIS 1,000 in costs.
Key Takeaways
- A transfer under section 78 requires the applicant to show that the balance of convenience clearly favors the requested forum.
- Documented disability, advanced age, and permanent mobility limitations can establish substantial travel hardship sufficient to justify a venue transfer.
- A generalized claim of inconvenience to representatives or witnesses carries little weight when it is unexplained and unsupported by an affidavit.
- The general reluctance to transfer cases between nearby courts is not absolute and may yield to compelling personal circumstances.
Why It Matters
The decision shows that Israel’s Supreme Court will apply venue rules flexibly when a litigant’s documented disabilities make attendance at the assigned court materially difficult. Even in a small-claims case expected to require only one hearing, meaningful access to the court can outweigh ordinary considerations favoring the existing venue.
It also underscores the evidentiary importance of supporting convenience arguments with concrete facts. A respondent opposing transfer should substantiate the burdens on its witnesses and representatives rather than rely on an asserted travel distance or generalized logistical inconvenience.