In what cases may an amendment to a defense be necessary?
An amendment to a defense may be necessary in two situations:
- after Amendment of a statement of claim – In these cases, the defendant may make adjustments to his defense to address new arguments that appeared in the amended statement of claim.
- Error in the defense or omission of important details – Sometimes the defendant makes a mistake and states incorrect details in his defense, which he will want to correct at a later stage when the error is discovered, or the defendant discovers that he forgot to state important or relevant details in his defense.
The defendant does not have an automatic right to correction. Defense And he will have to submit a request to the court and explain exactly what he wants to correct and why. The court will not grant the defendant's request in every case where a request is submitted, but in cases where the request is approved, and the defendant receives permission to make the necessary corrections, the court will usually oblige the defendant toLegal expenses (Sometimes the amounts may be very significant).
The court may also grant the defendant's request in part, meaning to allow certain amendments and reject the request with respect to other amendments.
By virtue of which legal provision can an amendment to a defense be requested?
Amendment of a statement of defense in civil lawsuits may be requested pursuant to Regulation 46 of the Regulations. Civil procedure Which states as follows:
(A) The court may at any time order that any matter in a pleading be amended or that a party be added or the name of a party be deleted from the pleading, in order to ensure a proper and fair judicial process, taking into account, among other things, the conduct of the person requesting the amendment, the stage of proceedings at which the request is submitted, and the purpose that the requested amendment is expected to achieve.
(on) An amended statement of claims will be submitted within twenty days.
Please note that the regulation states that the judge must also consider the defendant's conduct, the stage of the hearing (the more advanced the stage, the lower the likelihood that the court will grant the request), and the purpose of the amendment (what details/facts to add).
After amending the statement of claim, can a statement of defense be amended automatically?
Previously after repair Claim The defense could be amended automatically. Today, the situation is different and regulated under Regulation 47 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, which states as follows:
(A) The court decided to allow a litigant to amend his pleadings pursuant to Rule 46, Orders whether the opposing party is permitted to amend his pleadings and the conditions for doing so.
(on) If the court permits the amendment of the opposing party's statement of claim as stated in subregulation (a), the said statement of claim shall be filed within twenty days unless the court orders otherwise; if the opposing party does not amend his statement of claim within the said time, he may rely on his original statement of claim and the denial detailed in the amendment.
That is, according to Regulation 47, amending a defense after amending a statement of claim is only possible if the court has permitted it.
Court ruling regarding amendment of defense
סוגיית תיקון כתב הגנה לאחר תיקון כתב תביעה נדונה במסגרת ת"א 26097-02-24 שלמה ברנובסקי נ' מגדלי בראשית דניאל – נדל"ן בע"מ. בית המשפט קבע, בין היתר, כך:
After examining the parties' arguments, I decided to accept the request to amend the statement of claim (The request) and allow the filing of an amended defense whose amendments are limited to the amendments made in the statement of claimThese are my tastes;
There can be no dispute about the need to amend the statement of claim, in light of the developments that occurred after the submission of the statements of claim, as detailed above and as emerges from my decisions that preceded the submission of the application before me. In fact, the defendant also believes that this is the case and the main dispute is over the question of the scope of the permission to amend the statement of defense and the question of costs. Therefore, I will not elaborate on the question of the permission of the amendment itself, but only on what is, as stated, in dispute.
ואולם פטור בלא כלום אי אפשר. אזכיר כאן את תקנה 46 לתקנות, שלפיה בית המשפט רשאי ליתן "whenever" הוראות לתיקון כתב טענות "לשם קיומו של הליך שיפוטי ראוי והוגן, תוך התחשבות, בין השאר, בהתנהלותו של מבקש התיקון, השלב הדיוני שבו מוגשת הבקשה, והמטרה שהתיקון המבוקש צפוי להשיג".
…
לפי תקנה 47 לתקנות, בשונה מהדין שקדם לה, אין לנתבע זכות מוקנית להגשת כתב הגנה מתוקן, וההחלטה בעניין זה נתונה לשיקול דעת בית המשפט. זו לשון התקנה: "The court has decided to allow a party to amend his pleadings under Rule 46, ordering whether the opposing party is permitted to amend his pleadings and the conditions for doing so.".
תקנה 47 ביקשה לשנות את הדין הקודם, שלפיו התאפשר תיקון כתב הטענות ללא צורך בהיתר בית המשפט וגם ללא קשר לתיקון שנעשה, לרבות משלוח הודעות לצד ג' והגשת תביעה שכנגד [לשינוי בדין ראו רע"א 3901/21 פלוני נ' שירותי בריאות כללית (22.7.2021).
For more information on this matter, see Issachar Rosen-Zvi, Reform in Civil Procedure: Teacher embarrassed (Third edition – digital, July 2025, pp. 343-346) (Rosen-Zvi)]. יצוין כי תקנה זו טרם זכתה לליבון משמעותי בפסיקה. רוזן-צבי מציין כי הדין הקודם ביקש ליצור "מאזן אימה" בין בעלי הדין, כך שבעל דין המבקש לתקן את כתב התביעה צריך להביא בחשבון שהיענות לבקשה עלולה לגרור גם תיקון כתב הטענות של הצד שכנגד ככל העולה על רוחו.
In Rosen-Zvi's opinion, the previous law was unjustified in a significant number of cases, and he The bull "The appropriate balance between the procedural rights of the person requesting the amendment and the rights of the opposing party, who sometimes found himself forced to amend his pleadings for reasons beyond his control, and yet he found himself at a procedural disadvantage compared to the opposing party who was entitled to correct procedural defects or improve his procedural situation as he pleased.".
However, he believes that the arrangement in Regulation 47 also violates the balance, this time in favor of the party that requested the amendment, in such a way that the opposing party may find itself faced with new facts that remain unanswered.
Rosen Zvi believes that an automatic right to amend should be allowed in response to new facts raised in the amendment to the statement of claim, even without the need for court approval. However, if the amendment requested in the statement of defense does not directly relate to the amendment made in the statement of claim, court approval is required.
Regarding the latter situation, Rosen-Zvi suggests distinguishing between two situations: one, a situation in which an amendment to the statement of claim is required due to negligence on the part of the plaintiff-applicant's lawyer - in which case the amendment to the statement of defense should be permitted without any restriction; the second, a situation in which the amendment to the statement of claim was requested due to facts that were unknown to the plaintiff-applicant or that he should not have known about - in which case, as a general rule, there is no reason to allow, in Rosen-Zvi's opinion, the filing of an amended statement of defense on any matter that does not arise directly from the amendment to the statement of claim.
In our case, based on what is detailed above and as explained below, there is no need to set limits regarding the proposed diagnosis and regarding the first situation, while in any case there is no dispute that the defendant should be allowed to file an amended statement of defense, and the requested amendment is not rooted in the plaintiffs' negligence, so that even according to this diagnosis, the statement of defense should be limited to refer only to the amendments requested in the statement of claim.
…
However, the defendant believes, as stated, that she should be allowed to file a new defense without any restrictions (and even to file a new defense). Counterclaim), while the plaintiffs argue that the defendant should be limited so that it can only address the requested amendments. I believe that, in light of the purpose of the regulation and the circumstances of the case, there is no reason to allow the filing of an amended statement of defense without any reservation. The amendment of the statement of claim was requested due to new circumstances that have arisen, and not for reasons dependent on the plaintiffs or due to their failure. There is no reason to grant the defendant a procedural advantage in these circumstances, and the amended statement of defense should be limited to amendments relating to the amendments made in the original statement of claim, and nothing more.
In conclusion
Amending a defense may be necessary after amending a statement of claim or in a situation where the defendant made an error in his defense or forgot to mention important and relevant details in the defense.
In the event that a request is filed to amend a defense, the court will not necessarily approve it. In any case, the defendant must specify exactly what he is seeking to amend, and the court may grant the request in full or in part.
Amending a defense depends on the defendant's conduct, the stage of the proceedings, and what exactly the amendment is intended to achieve. To the extent that the amendment does not contribute to clarifying the dispute, it will probably not be approved.
