Background
Shmuel and Hava Sinai appealed a Jerusalem District Court judgment dated May 4, 2026, which had denied a motion to dismiss at the threshold an application for certification of a class action. They asked the Supreme Court to exempt them from paying the court fee and depositing security for the respondents’ costs.
The applicants asserted that Shmuel Sinai was elderly, had a 100% disability, could not work, and depended on National Insurance Institute benefits. They argued that they could not raise the required security quickly, that denying an exemption would impede their access to the courts, and that their registered rights in an apartment provided adequate security. The respondents countered that the applicants owned a valuable apartment, had supplied almost no current financial documentation, had not shown efforts to obtain assistance from relatives, and had not explained Hava Sinai’s finances or how their legal representation was funded.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Moran Yahav declined to grant the requested exemption in full. She explained that an applicant seeking exemption from appellate security must establish both an inability to pay through a complete and current evidentiary record and a genuine prospect that the proceeding will succeed. The applicant must also show an inability to obtain the money with help from close associates.
The applicants did not satisfy the financial-disclosure requirement. Their submission included only Shmuel Sinai’s affidavit and two National Insurance Institute documents concerning his old-age benefits and medical disability. It omitted bank and credit-card records, details of expenses, assets and savings, evidence concerning Hava Sinai’s finances, efforts to raise funds from others, and an explanation of how counsel was being financed. The apartment was not an adequate substitute because appellate security must be readily and reliably enforceable, while the property was subject to a bank lien and could generate disputes or practical difficulties upon enforcement.
Nevertheless, because the proceeding was an appeal as of right and Shmuel Sinai’s documented circumstances warranted preserving access to the Court, the registrar reduced the security to NIS 15,000 without expressing any view on the appeal’s prospects. The applicants were ordered to deposit that amount by August 30, 2026, failing which the appeal could be dismissed without further notice. The respondents’ request for costs on the exemption motion was denied.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking exemption from appellate security must provide complete, current evidence of the entire household’s financial position and show genuine prospects of success.
- Evidence of disability and receipt of public benefits, standing alone, does not establish inability to deposit security.
- Real property encumbered by a bank lien is not equivalent to cash or a bank guarantee when its realization may be disputed or delayed.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Israeli Supreme Court’s strict evidentiary approach to requests for relief from appellate security. Applicants must disclose income, expenses, assets, savings, financing arrangements, and efforts to obtain outside assistance; general assertions of hardship are insufficient.
At the same time, the ruling shows that the Court may reduce security to protect meaningful access to an appeal as of right when documented personal circumstances justify accommodation, even though the evidence does not warrant a complete exemption.