What is an interim decision?
Within any legal proceeding, there are two types of decisions: interim decisions and judgments. An interim decision (or other decision by its other name) is a decision that is given during the proceeding and does not finally end the dispute between the parties. In contrast, a judgment is a decision that is given at the end of the proceeding and is usually not followed by further requests or decisions.
Except in exceptional cases, in most proceedings only one judgment will be given (the exception is when a partial judgment is given during the proceedings). In contrast, an interim decision can be given many times, and in practice it will be difficult to find Civil lawsuit or Financial claim (Of course not Class action lawsuit) in which only one interim decision was given.
What is the purpose of an interim decision?
The purpose of an interim decision is to decide a specific dispute that arose between the parties during the procedure (for example, on the issue of Document disclosure or questionnaires) or to give instructions regarding the advancement of the procedure (for example, a decision regarding the date of the hearing).
The fewer disputes there are between the parties throughout the procedure, the fewer interim decisions will be issued in the case.
Can an interim decision be changed?
In contrast to giving verdict An interim decision does not create Court action, meaning that the parties are entitled to return to discuss the exact same issue. The court is also entitled to On his own initiative Change an interim decision.
In order to change an interim decision, it is not always necessary to submit Request for leave to appeal However, another application can be filed at a later stage for the court to reconsider the issue. In such a situation, a certain change in circumstances must be shown, otherwise the court may reach the same conclusion/outcome and the decision will not change.
בעניין זה בית המשפט העליון קבע כך (רע"א 6036/22 דרורה פריש נ' פוטזניק הלן סאקס, החלטה מיום 18.10.2022):
Moreover, and this is the main point: the decision on which the request for leave to appeal is based on the court's assessment of the state of affairs (in relation to the scope of the dispute and the manner in which it can be decided) as of the stage at which it was submitted. As such, the court may reconsider it in the course of the hearing and even change it. (ראו: סעיף 98 לתקנות סדר הדין האזרחי, התשע"ט-2018 (להלן תקסד"א); רע"א 1189/22 חאתם קוואסמה נ' אנוור קואסמה, פסקאות 6-7 [פורסם בנבו] (4.7.2022)).
If, after hearing the testimony of the prosecution witnesses (or at any other stage of the proceedings), the circumstances change in a way that justifies the need to summon the witnesses, The applicant may resubmit an appropriate application, and the court is expected to examine it in accordance with all relevant considerations and decide on it.In this context, it should be noted that the court may also grant the request in part and invite only some of the witnesses whose summons were requested, if it believes that their testimony may advance the investigation of the truth.
Reconsideration of an interim decision (reconsideration)
A common option for litigants to request and change an interim decision Immediately after it was given, is by filing a request for reconsideration. The purpose of the request is to avoid filing a request for leave to appeal to the higher court, thereby avoiding the waste of valuable time and considerable money involved in filing a request for leave to appeal.
There are two cases in which the court will approve a request for reconsideration of its decision that is not a judgment:
- A substantial change in circumstances has occurred that justifies a reconsideration of the original decision.
- It turned out that the decision was made due to an error, which was technical in nature.
בעניין זה בית המשפט העליון קבע כך (רע"א 7127/22 טארק עבד אלחי נ' צאלח מנסור, החלטה מיום 29.1.2023):
It is settled law that the court may review the decisions it has made only in cases where a substantial change in circumstances has been proven that justifies a reexamination of the original decision, or in other, rare cases, where it has become clear that the decision was made due to an error that is technical in nature. (וראו: רע"א 1687/17 קואופ סופרמרקטים בע"מ נ' ליברטי פרופרטיס בע"מ, פסקה י' [פורסם בנבו] (7.3.2017); ע"א 3604/02 אוקו נ' שמי, פ"ד נו(4) 505, 508 (2002); בן-נון וחבקין, בעמ' 427-426).
With regard to requests for reconsideration of a decision rejecting a request to annul the judgment, as a general rule, there will be no reason to accept them based on the grounds of a change in circumstances, since the reason for the party's failure, as well as his defense arguments, are known to him and he is expected to summarize all of his arguments in his original request. כך הם פני הדברים גם בענייננו. החלפת ייצוגם המשפטי של המבקשים וביצוע "בירור מעמיק" על-ידם לגבי החוב שבמחלוקת, אינו מהווה שינוי נסיבות מהותי המצדיק עיון מחדש. המבקשים אף לא הצביעו על טעות טכנית כלשהי, היכולה לשמש בסיס לעיון מחודש כזה. לפיכך, כאמור, בדין נדחתה הבקשה לעיון מחדש.
Appeal against an interim decision
Unlike a judgment, an interim decision cannot be appealed as a matter of right. In these cases, a request must be submitted Request for leave to appeal And convince the appellate court why permission should be granted at this stage and not discuss all of the party's objections (including all of the interim decisions that he believes were incorrect throughout the process) at the time of the hearing. הגשת ערעור על פסק הדין or within the framework Counter-appeal.
בעניין זה בית המשפט העליון קבע כך (רע"א 2549/23 וולף שאול נ' יורם שבתאי, החלטה מיום 4.4.2023):
In accordance with the provisions of Section 41(b) of theCourts Law [נוסח משולב], התשמ"ד-1984, בית משפט זה ייעתר לבקשה למתן רשות ערעור על "החלטה אחרת" של בית המשפט המחוזי רק אם שוכנע, כי "… אם הערעור על ההחלטה יידון במסגרת הערעור על פסק הדין ולא באופן מיידי, יהיה בכך כדי להשפיע באופן ממשי על זכויות הצדדים או שעלול להיגרם לצד להליך נזק של ממש, או שעלול להתנהל הליך מיותר או בדרך שגויה". מכך עולה, כי על דרך הכלל, יש לברר את טענות הצדדים על החלטות אחרות שניתנו במהלך הדיון, אגב הערעור על פסק הדין כולו; ואילו החריג לכך הוא מצב בו נדרש הדבר באופן מידי, להמשך ניהולו של ההליך באופן מלא והוגן (רע"א 1487/23 כץ נ' ראז חקלאות אחזקות ופיתוח בע"מ, פסקה 15 (06.03.2023)).
בנוסף, כידוע, בית משפט זה אינו נוטה להתערב בהחלטות הערכאה הדיונית בכל הנוגע לאופן ניהול ההליך (רע"א 5318/20 פלונית נ' שירותי בריאות כללית, פסקה 5 (11.08.2020) (להלן: עניין פלונית); רע"א 147/22 אבו חרפה נ' מסרי, פסקה 6 (29.03.2022)). ברי, כי שאלות הנוגעות להבאת ראיות, מצויות בליבת שיקול הדעת של הערכאה הדיונית (רע"א 2242/21 מ.ע.ג.ן – ייעוץ וניהול נכסים בע"מ נ' בוטיק- שימור מבנים בע"מ, פסקה 7 (27.04.2021)).
The case before me is not one of those exceptional cases that would justify granting leave to appeal, and I see no reason to interfere with the decision that is the subject of the application, which is a clear procedural decision that is left to the discretion of the District Court. An expert opinion forms part of the party's pleadings (cf.: Case No. 5); and in our case, when the District Court sets explicit deadlines for this purpose, the applicants can only blame themselves for having delayed the deadline, and not having bothered to submit an appropriate request to extend the submission deadline. All of this, without addressing the manner in which the application was submitted – which was submitted as part of their response to the application on behalf of the respondent (which, contrary to the applicants' claim, does not concern the matter of the requested opinion); and without attaching a legal affidavit to the application.
Difference between an interim decision and a partial judgment
Sometimes situations arise in which during the legal process the court will decide Finally On a specific matter that was in dispute between the parties.
For example: Shlomi and Avi have a dispute over two loans. During the proceedings, it became clear that there is no longer a dispute over one of the loans. With regard to this loan, which is no longer in dispute, the court may grant Partial verdict, so that the rest of the procedure will focus solely on the loan issue that remains in dispute.
The essential difference between a partial judgment given during the course of the proceedings and another decision is that the dispute between the parties is finally decided, as opposed to another decision that may lead to a situation where the court is required to discuss the same matter again during the proceedings.
This distinction is important because once a partial judgment is rendered and one of the parties is dissatisfied with it, he may file an appeal on the merits and not a request for leave to appeal.
The litigant will not be able to file an appeal against a partial judgment after a judgment has been rendered at the conclusion of the proceedings. He must act in this situation immediately after the partial judgment has been rendered.
Is the court authorized to award legal costs when deciding on an interim decision?
The issue of awarding legal costs during the course of the proceedings is regulated in Section 53 of the Civil Procedure Regulations. This regulation states as follows:
53. At the end of the hearing on each application, the court will rule on the costs of the application and to whom they apply, regardless of the results of the main proceedings, unless it finds that there are special reasons not to charge the said costs.
By virtue of this regulation, the court is indeed authorized to rule Legal expenses Also during the course of the procedure when a decision is made on any request, and not only at the conclusion of the procedure, as part of the ruling.
In practice, and despite the stipulation in Regulation 53, the courts do not always award legal costs when deciding on a request during the course of the proceedings.
In conclusion
Two types of decisions characterize any judicial proceeding: a judgment and interim decisions. Unlike a judgment, interim decisions do not end the dispute between the parties, and their decisions cannot be appealed immediately, but must be subject to court permission.
In certain cases, interim decisions can be changed by filing a request for reconsideration or a further request in the same matter after the passage of time and as a certain change in circumstances has occurred.
The court may award legal costs to one of the parties when issuing interim decisions, and not only when issuing a judgment.
Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Interim Decision
-
What is the difference between a judgment and an interim decision?
The essential difference is that a ruling ends the disputes between the parties (a court decision is created), as opposed to an interim decision that does not end the procedure and allows the same issue that was decided to be discussed again.
-
Can an interim decision be appealed?
Not possible To appeal the right Rather, applications for leave to appeal an interim decision must be submitted, and the appellate court will consider and decide whether there is a need to grant leave to hear the appeal at that stage.
Most often, requests for leave to appeal interim decisions are rejected and the litigant is directed to file an appeal against the entire judgment and all interim decisions at the conclusion of the proceedings. -
Can an interim decision be changed without appeal?
Yes, a request for reconsideration can be submitted to the same judge or a request can be submitted in the same matter at a later stage, if any change in circumstances arises that may lead to a change in the decision.
-
Can enforcement proceedings be taken for violation of an interim decision?
yes.
For example, in a situation where legal costs were awarded in favor of one of the parties as part of an interim decision, and the opposing party did not pay the costs, in this case, enforcement proceedings can be initiated for failure to comply with that interim decision.
