Background
Shlag Lavan (1986) Ltd. participated in a two-stage tender issued by Israel Railways Ltd. for security, guarding, and security screening services at various railway stations. The first stage required evaluation of proposals based on quality scores; only bidders meeting a minimum score threshold could proceed to the second stage. Shlag Lavan’s proposal was rejected at the first stage for failing to meet the required score minimum.
In November 2025, Shlag Lavan filed an administrative petition with the District Court for Administrative Matters (Central-Lod), challenging the rejection. On January 19, 2026, that court rejected the petition, finding no basis to intervene in the tender committee’s scoring discretion. Shlag Lavan then appealed to the Supreme Court of Israel.
On March 27, 2026, the court set the appeal hearing for July 20, 2026. However, multiple requests to postpone the hearing followed. On April 9, 2026, respondents filed a joint request to delay the hearing due to a concurrent evidence hearing and counsel’s pre-scheduled family vacation. The parties agreed on alternative dates in early October 2026, and on May 5, 2026, the court rescheduled the hearing to October 5, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
On June 28, 2026, Israel Railways submitted a second postponement request, citing an office-wide vacation (October 6–9, 2026) that would involve all office staff and the attorneys handling the case. Israel Railways proposed October 13 or 29, 2026 as alternatives—dates it noted were already on the agreed list from April. Shlag Lavan opposed any postponement beyond October 7, 2026.
The Supreme Court rejected the postponement request. The court emphasized that the October 5 hearing date had already been consensually agreed upon by the respondents themselves in April 2026, and that no dates in mid- or late October were available on the court’s calendar. The court stressed that as a matter of principle, “every hearing fixed in the court should be held on the date set,” because “postponements of hearings prevent optimal use of judicial time, which is the most valuable resource of the judicial authority” (citing prior authority). The court also noted the significant case backlog facing the Supreme Court at that time and the expedited resolution required in procurement disputes.
While the court acknowledged the request’s arguments, it determined that the competing interests of calendar efficiency, prior agreement, and the expedited nature of procurement review outweighed the counsel’s vacation schedule. The decision reflects the court’s commitment to enforcing procedural discipline and preventing unnecessary delays in judicial proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Procurement disputes warrant expedited resolution and should not be subject to multiple postponements once hearing dates are consensually set.
- Even when alternative hearing dates fall within a period previously agreed upon by the parties, the court will not reschedule if those specific dates are unavailable on the court calendar.
- Counsel vacation schedules, even those pre-booked, do not ordinarily justify postponement of hearings once dates have been judicially set and agreed.
- Israeli civil procedure prioritizes optimal use of judicial time as a foundational principle, limiting postponements regardless of their apparent convenience.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces strict adherence to hearing schedules in Israeli civil procedure, particularly in procurement cases where expedited resolution serves the public interest. The ruling demonstrates that the Supreme Court will decline to accommodate counsel scheduling conflicts—including vacation—once a hearing date has been set and consensually agreed upon, even if alternative dates in the same calendar month exist. This approach protects judicial efficiency and prevents the use of procedural postponements to delay the resolution of administrative and commercial disputes.
The decision also illustrates the tension between counsel scheduling needs and institutional constraints: while the court acknowledges that pre-booked vacation creates genuine scheduling hardship, it prioritizes the broader judicial system’s resource scarcity. Practitioners should view calendared hearing dates as firm commitments requiring coordination of counsel availability beforehand, rather than as provisional dates subject to revision based on post-hearing-assignment scheduling conflicts.