Background
This appeal concerns the limits of an arbitrator’s authority after a court has confirmed an arbitral award. On July 9, 2024, the District Court of Jerusalem confirmed a 2023 arbitral award requiring Abraham Yehuda Silver to pay Saadia Anigenar 7,055,690 New Israeli Shekels (NIS) pursuant to a loan agreement. During arbitration, Silver had deposited funds as security—6,200,000 NIS in a charitable lending fund (gmach) and 1,500,000 NIS with the arbitrator himself. The confirming judgment authorized the arbitrator to issue supplementary instructions regarding these specific deposited funds and their transfer to Anigenar for debt satisfaction.
After confirmation, the arbitrator issued a series of supplementary decisions. In August 2024, he required that funds be transferred through a trust account and mandated that any enforcement proceedings obtain his written approval. In November 2024, responding to Anigenar’s challenge, the arbitrator authorized enforcement through lawful means. However, in August 2025—after enforcement proceedings had begun and funds had been seized—the arbitrator issued a second supplementary decision that reduced the debt to 6,755,690 NIS and ordered Anigenar to cancel all enforcement proceedings he had initiated, directly reversing his earlier position.
Silver sought to confirm both supplementary decisions; Anigenar sought their annulment. The District Court granted Anigenar’s request on June 7, 2026, annulling the August 2025 supplementary decision. Silver appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the District Court’s annulment. Justice David Mintz held that once an arbitral award is confirmed by a court and becomes final, it acquires the status of a court judgment. The arbitrator’s authority thereafter is strictly circumscribed: he may issue only supplementary determinations specifically authorized by the court. In this case, the confirming judgment limited the arbitrator to addressing the charity fund deposits—a narrow, defined issue. The August 2025 supplementary decision, which modified the debt amount itself, “exceeded the framework of authority granted to him” and violated Section 24(3) of the Arbitration Law, 5728-1968.
The Court further held that the arbitrator’s directive preventing Anigenar from pursuing enforcement proceedings violated public policy under Section 24(9) of the law. A creditor cannot be stripped of the right to pursue lawful collection of a confirmed debt. The parties’ subsequent engagement with the arbitrator—their requests for clarifications and amendments—did not implicitly expand his authority beyond what the court had explicitly delegated. The Supreme Court rejected Silver’s argument for a partial annulment that would preserve the debt reduction, finding that all determinations in the second supplementary decision flowed from the same excess of authority. Finally, the Court dismissed Silver’s concern about “double payment,” finding no basis for it in the record: the seized funds in the charity account would be applied to satisfy the debt, precluding any separate collection from Silver’s other assets.
Key Takeaways
- A confirmed arbitral award acquires the finality and status of a court judgment; the arbitrator cannot later reclaim expansive authority to modify its core terms.
- An arbitrator’s post-confirmation authority is strictly limited to supplementary determinations explicitly ordered by the confirming court.
- Parties’ subsequent requests to an arbitrator for clarifications or modifications do not operate to expand his authority beyond the court’s delegation.
- Public policy—including a creditor’s right to enforce a lawful debt—cannot be overridden by arbitral determination, even after the parties have initially chosen arbitration.
- Once enforcement proceedings are transferred to the official enforcement office, the arbitrator’s authority terminates entirely.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important clarity on the finality of confirmed arbitral awards in Israeli law. It establishes that arbitration, once concluded and confirmed by a court, does not leave the arbitrator in an ongoing supervisory role over the collection process. The ruling protects the certainty and stability of arbitral outcomes—critical to arbitration’s function as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. By holding that parties cannot implicitly expand an arbitrator’s authority through subsequent engagement, the Court prevents arbitration from becoming a prolonged quasi-judicial process subject to serial modifications.
For practicing attorneys in Israel and internationally, the decision reinforces that the arbitration process truly ends when a court confirms the award. Subsequent disputes about enforcement, the scope of remedies, or the application of the award must be resolved through the courts’ enforcement and appellate machinery, not through the arbitrator. This boundary protects both creditors’ enforcement rights and the autonomy of national courts to oversee execution of judgments. It also signals that while public policy may limit arbitral awards at the confirmation stage, an arbitrator cannot use supplementary proceedings to circumvent public policy constraints that should have been raised earlier.