Background
In this civil appeal, appellant Adv. Aviad Visoli sought to strike the entire volume of appendices accompanying the respondents’ September 9, 2026 reply. He argued that the documents were not faithful copies of the materials before the lower court, that some had been truncated, that extensive yellow highlighting and altered pagination violated filing requirements, and that introductory pages and the table of contents improperly characterized interlocutory decisions as “final judgments.” The respondents disputed those allegations and argued that the motion was belated because substantially the same materials had appeared in earlier filings without timely objection.
Visoli separately moved to strike the respondents’ reply brief, or alternatively to have the Court disregard arguments placed in its footnotes. He contended that reduced-size, tightly spaced footnotes containing substantive legal argument effectively exceeded the authorized page limit. The respondents relied on earlier registrar decisions accepting a reply of the same length and rejecting Visoli’s untimely objection to its expanded scope.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Moran Yahav denied the request to remove the appendix volume. A June 6, 2026 decision had already rejected a blanket request to strike all appendices while permitting targeted objections, yet Visoli again sought wholesale removal. Reviewing the particular documents identified, the Registrar found no basis to exclude them: most were filed or created in the lower-court proceeding; the allegedly truncated items contained the relevant short-form decisions; the pagination complied with the judiciary administration’s formatting instructions; and the highlighting objection was raised late. Whether the attached rulings were legally final was not appropriately determined through this procedural motion. The Registrar also declined at this stage to remove a redacted screenshot from the Net HaMishpat court system, noting its earlier inclusion and the Court’s own access to the underlying case information.
The Registrar also refused to strike the September 9, 2026 reply or disregard its footnotes. The reply was the same length as a November 13, 2025 version that had been accepted for filing after the respondents obtained permission to expand it, and an earlier objection had been rejected as untimely and on the merits. Although parties generally should place their arguments and legal authorities in the main text rather than in footnotes, the procedural history did not justify relief here. The respondents were directed to submit three copies of the corrected reply and appendices by October 20, 2026, for the hearing scheduled for November 9, 2026. No costs were awarded.
Key Takeaways
- A renewed blanket challenge to an entire appendix volume will not succeed when the Court has already directed the objecting party to identify specific documents and grounds for exclusion.
- Objections to highlighting, formatting, or materials previously included in filings may be rejected when raised only after substantial delay.
- Substantive argument and legal authorities generally belong in the body of a brief, but previously accepted formatting and earlier procedural rulings may weigh against striking a later brief using the same format.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that challenges to an appellate record or brief must be specific, timely, and presented through the proper procedural vehicle. It also shows that Israeli appellate filing disputes are assessed in light of the proceeding’s history, including prior acceptance of substantially identical materials.
The ruling was procedural only. It did not decide the merits of the underlying civil appeal or determine whether the attached lower-court rulings were legally final.