Background
The Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court’s Economic Department approved a settlement in a class action against Delek Group Ltd. and several of its officers. Miriam Visoly, who had objected to the settlement with another objector, appealed. Her first appeal was filed on time but was struck on March 3, 2026, after approximately nine months during which she failed to provide adequate security for costs despite repeated opportunities and extensions. A Supreme Court justice rejected her appeal from that striking order on June 24, 2026.
That same day, Visoly filed a new appeal that she described as substantively identical to the first. She did not seek an extension of the deadline for appealing the District Court’s judgment, although the original deadline had expired approximately one year earlier. She argued that the new appeal was timely because the striking of her first appeal became final only when her challenge to that order was rejected.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Ron Goldstein struck the renewed appeal as untimely under Regulation 147(b) of the Civil Procedure Regulations. The time to appeal ran from service of the District Court’s judgment, not from the conclusion of later proceedings concerning the striking of an earlier appeal. Although striking an appeal ordinarily does not create res judicata or categorically prevent refiling, a new appeal filed after the statutory deadline requires an extension of time. Visoly neither filed such a request with the renewed appeal nor did so after the registrar expressly raised the issue.
The registrar also rejected Visoly’s contention that the court could not raise untimeliness on its own initiative. A registrar has administrative authority to strike an improperly filed appeal, including an untimely one, without awaiting a party’s motion, provided the parties receive an adequate opportunity to be heard. Visoly received that opportunity. The registrar further held that recycling an identical appeal without permission or an extension—after the first appeal was struck because of the appellant’s own continuing failure to provide security—amounted in these circumstances to an abuse of process.
The appeal was struck, rendering the pending fee-waiver and third-party-guarantee applications moot. Visoly was ordered to pay NIS 5,000 in costs to respondent 1 and NIS 5,000 collectively to respondents 2 through 9.
Key Takeaways
- Striking an appeal does not generally bar refiling, but it does not restart the statutory appeal period.
- A renewed appeal filed after the original deadline must be accompanied by a request for an extension of time supported by the required grounds.
- An Israeli Supreme Court registrar may raise filing defects such as untimeliness on the court’s own initiative, provided the parties are given a fair opportunity to respond.
- Refiling an identical appeal without permission after the original appeal was struck for the appellant’s own procedural defaults may constitute abuse of process.
Why It Matters
The ruling distinguishes the absence of a res judicata bar from compliance with appellate deadlines. A litigant may remain theoretically free to refile a struck appeal, but once the original filing period has expired, the litigant must obtain an extension; proceedings challenging the earlier striking order do not reset the clock.
The decision also confirms the registrar’s authority to police technical and procedural defects sua sponte and underscores that repeated noncompliance involving security for costs can affect not only the first appeal but also the court’s treatment of any later attempt to revive it.