When is a claim for annulment of a judgment based on the duty of justice used?
When we talk about annulling a judgment out of the obligation of justice, we are referring to situations in which a judgment was given against a party when he did not file a defense or did not appear for the hearing. In these cases, instead of File an appeal against the verdict, that party must file a motion to quash the judgment.
Request to annul a judgment Can be filed under Regulation 131 Civil Procedure Regulations, which states as follows:
If the court has given a decision ex parte and the party against whom the decision was given has filed a motion to annul it within thirty days of the date on which the decision was served on him, the court may annul it, under such conditions as it deems appropriate; this provision shall not apply to an application to the court under Regulation 33(d).
In other words, annulment of a judgment out of the duty of justice is only relevant when the request for annulment is filed within 30 days after receipt of the judgment. If the litigant missed the deadline and wishes to annul the judgment after 30 days after receipt of the judgment, he must file a request for an extension of time and request the court's approval to allow him to file the request late.
In these cases, the party must present weighty reasons in order for the court to grant the request for an extension of time. A clerical error, for example, will not be accepted as a convincing explanation and in these cases the court will usually not grant the request for an extension of time.
If the court has approved filing a motion to set aside a judgment late, the opposing party will be entitled to file Opposition to a request to quash a judgment.
In a situation where a party has requested the annulment of a judgment from the duty of justice but his request has been denied, it is possible to file Request for leave to appeal (and not Appeal of right).
The meaning of a claim to annul a judgment from the duty of justice
In order to overturn a judgment given ex parte or in the absence of a defense, the court examines several issues. One of those issues is why a judgment was given against that party, and whether it is fair to overturn the judgment under those circumstances.
For example: A judgment may be set aside out of a duty of justice when the party did not receive the statement of claim at all, and the judgment against him was given on the basis of incorrect information provided to the court, according to which he did receive the statement of claim. A claim to set aside a judgment out of a duty of justice can be used even if the party did not receive a summons to the hearing at all, which is the reason why that party did not appear for the hearing.
In these cases, and similar ones, the party's failure does not stem from his fault or negligence, but simply from a lack of knowledge of the existence of the procedure, and therefore the legal system understands and recognizes that this is not the type of case in which the judgment should be left in effect, because it is simply unjust in the circumstances.
Court rulings regarding the annulment of a judgment from the duty of justice
ניתן למצוא החלטות רבות העוסקות בעניין ביטול פסק דין מחובת הצדק. למעשה כל החלטה שתדון בבקשה לביטול פסק דין תדון ב"חובת הצדק". בהמשך מפורטים ציטוטים ממספר פסקי דין העוסק בעניין ביטול פסק דין מחובת הצדק.
רע"א 52572-12-23 יעקב שייקוביץ נ' בנק הפועלים בע"מ:
תקנה 131 לתקנות סדר הדין האזרחי, התשע"ט-2018 קובעת: "נתן בית המשפט החלטה לפי צד אחד והגיש בעל הדין שנגדו ניתנה ההחלטה בקשת ביטול בתוך שלושים ימים מיום שהומצאה לו ההחלטה, רשאי בית המשפט לבטלה, בתנאים שייראו לו…"
ההלכה הפסוקה מכירה בשתי עילות לביטול החלטה שניתנה במעמד צד אחד: הראשונה – ביטול "מחובת הצדק" – העוסקת במצבים בהם קיים פגם בהמצאת כתב תביעה או בהמצאת זימון לדיון (ראו לעניין זה: רע"א 2582/18 Grifat v. Israel Lands Development Authority [פורסם בנבו] (2.6.2013)). השנייה, שיקול דעת בית המשפט והיא נוגעת למצבים בהם לא נפל כל פגם בהמצאה או בזימון. השיקול השני, שהינו השיקול המשמעותי והמהותי יותר – עניינו בחינת סיכויי ההצלחה של מבקש הביטול בתביעתו או בהגנתו (ראו: רע"א 1957/12 Zahara Challah v. Yosef Cohen [Published in Nevo] (22.5.2012)).
ת"א 29349-05-18 פלוני נ' שמעון לוי:
As is known, according to settled case law, there are two grounds that allow the annulment of a judgment given ex parte: Cancellation due to the duty of justice – cases in which there was a defect in the judgment that goes to the root of the procedure, which justifies its cancellation regardless of the body of the judgment and its justification, such as when a discovery was not made lawfully. (רע"א 640/19 Ibrahim V. Al-Bahbasa, פסקה 6 [פורסם בנבו] (17.04.2019) (להלן: "The Ibrahim Affair"));
And the second ground is annulment at the court's discretion, which exists in circumstances in which the court finds that the judgment was lawfully rendered. According to this ground of annulment, the court is authorized to annul a judgment at its discretion when the existence of two cumulative elements must be proven, which concern, an examination of the applicant's chances of success in the claim under discussion if the judgment is annulled, and the second, the reasons provided by the applicant for his procedural omissions, whether it is a contempt of court or a bona fide mistake, an unfortunate combination of circumstances or negligence...
ו"ע 28948-04-22 ניסים אלמוג נ' מנהל מיסוי מקרקעין חיפה:
Case law recognizes two grounds for annulling a decision given unilaterally: הראשונה – ביטול "מחובת הצדק" – העוסקת במצבים בהם קיים פגם בהמצאת כתב תביעה או בהמצאת זימון לדיון. במצב דברים כזה, ככל שהוכח הפגם בהמצאה או בזימון – יורה בית המשפט על ביטול ההחלטה, מבלי שיידרש לעניין סיכויו של מבקש הבקשה להצליח בהליך.
…
The second consideration, which is the more significant and fundamental consideration, concerns examining the chances of success of the person requesting the annulment in his claim or defense.
…
In addition to the two aforementioned considerations, it was noted in the matter Sick Because there is another consideration, a kind of overarching consideration, concerning the right of access to the courts, but this right is also not absolute and must be balanced against other interests:
Alongside these guiding considerations, the internal balance between which was explained above, there is another consideration, a kind of overriding consideration, that must be taken into account when examining a request to annul a judgment, and that is the right of access to the courts, which is denied to the same party in whose absence the judgment was rendered… It is clear that this is not an absolute right and must be balanced, among other things, against the public interest..
כדברי השופט (כתארו אז) א' גרוניס: "בדברנו על אינטרס הציבור מכוונים אנו לאינטרס הציבורי-מערכתי בניהול תכליתי ויעיל של מערכת המשפט" (רע"א 9686/09 נאות אואזיס מלונות בע"מ נ' זיסר ([פורסם בנבו], 21.2.2010) פסקה 6). מכאן שבבואנו לבחון בקשה לביטול פסק דין שניתן בהעדר התייצבות (או בהעדר הגנה) עלינו לאזן בין השיקולים והאינטרסים האמורים על רקע מכלול נסיבות המקרה ולהבטיח, כי הסנקציה של מתן פסק דין במעמד צד היא מידתית בנסיבות העניין ושלא ראוי היה להפעיל סנקציה אחרת – פחותה בחומרתה – כגון השתת הוצאות…
In conclusion
The claim of annulment of a judgment due to the duty of justice is relevant to a situation where a judgment was entered against a party in the absence of a defense or in the absence of an appearance. In these cases, instead of filing an appeal, the party must file a motion to annul the judgment (and not Request to cancel a claimAn appeal can be filed if the court rejects the request to overturn the judgment.
The application to annul the judgment must be submitted within 30 days of the date of receipt of the judgment. If the application is not submitted on time, a request may be submitted for an extension of time for filing. Request to annul a judgmentIn these cases, weighty arguments must be presented to convince the court to grant the request.
The meaning of annulling a judgment from the obligation of justice is that the judgment was given to the party in circumstances beyond his control, such as: he did not receive the The statement of claim (Therefore he did not submit Defense) or he did not receive the summons to the hearing (and therefore did not appear for the hearing).
