What is a frivolous claim?
A frivolous lawsuit is a lawsuit that has very low, or even zero, chances of being accepted in court. A completely vexatious lawsuit. In a significant number of cases, the plaintiff himself knows that he is filing a frivolous lawsuit that he has no chance of winning, And its real goal is not necessarily to win the remedies specified in the framework The statement of claim, but rather different goals such as harassing the defendant, trying to silence him (Silence claim), cause the defendant to bear the costs Lawyer's fees which he cannot finance, or make the defendant agree to something the plaintiff wants, as a condition of the plaintiff's agreement to file Request to delete the claim.
The legal system abhors frivolous lawsuits because they waste valuable judicial time and are even seen as Abuse of legal proceedingsThe Civil Procedure Regulations even refer to this explicitly. Regulation 4 states as follows:
A party or his attorney shall not abuse legal proceedings, including any action in a proceeding that has the purpose or effect of disrupting, delaying, or harassing a party, including an action that is disproportionate to the nature, cost, or complexity of the hearing.
גם פסיקת בית המשפט העליון מבהירה שניתן להורות על דחיית תביעה אם מבוצע שימוש לרעה בהליכי משפט. בעניין זה נקבע בע"א 6460/21 טובי פרץ נ' יגאל כהן (פסק דין מיום 18.6.2023), בין היתר, כך:
הכלל שאוסר על שימוש לרעה בהליך משפטי אשר מעוגן בהלכה פסוקה, בסעיפים 39 ו-61(ב) ל חוק החוזים (חלק כללי), התשל"ג-1973, וכיום – גם בתקנה 4 לתקנות סד"א החדשות. כלל זה מאפשר לבית המשפט לדחות את טענותיו של בעל דין כאשר אלה נגועות בשימוש לרעה בהליך משפטי.
How to deal with a frivolous claim?
It is important to remember that rejecting a frivolous claim will usually lead to the plaintiff being held liable. Legal expenses for a significant amount (this matter has even received media coverage in the past). The real problem is that in order to reach the end of the procedure and receive verdict In the framework of which it will be determined that the plaintiff filed a vexatious lawsuit, the defendant must generally hire the services of a lawyer who will manage his defense and represent him in court.
In a significant number of cases, a frivolous claim filed with the court specifies an unreasonable claim amount. This amount may well affect the amount of the attorney's fees that the attorney will charge to represent and defend you. The higher the fee amount, the more difficulty the defendant will encounter in defending against a frivolous claim.
In light of this difficulty, this is the first thing you should do after receiving the claim and even before preparing it. Defense, הוא לפנות לתובע בדוא"ל ולבהיר לו שככל שהוא יעמוד על בירורה של תביעת הסרק אתם תאלצו לעמוד על פסיקת הוצאות משפט ריאליות. תדגישו בדוא"ל שבכוונתכם להגיש את הודעת הדוא"ל לבית המשפט.
לרוב הודעת דוא"ל זה לא תוביל למחיקת כתב התביעה אך מטרתה האמיתית היא לשמש אתכם בסיומו של ההליך על מנת שתוכלו להציגה לבית המשפט ולהבהיר שנתתם לתובע הזדמנות לחזור בו ולמנוע מכם הוצאות כספיות גבוהות ומיותרות, ומכיוון שהתובע לא חזר בו מתביעתו ראוי ומוצדק לפסוק לטובתכם Realistic legal expenses.
Filing a request to dismiss the lawsuit outright
Another option for dealing with a frivolous/vexatious claim is to file a motion to strike out the claim. For this purpose, you can use Sections 41-42 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, which state as follows:
41. (A) The court may order the deletion of a claim at any time on the basis of one of these grounds:
(1) The statement of claim does not disclose a cause of action;
(2) The letter of claim indicates that the claim is vexatious or vexatious;
(3) The plaintiff persistently, in an unacceptable manner, avoids complying with a provision of these regulations or avoids complying with a decision or order of the court;
(4) Any other reason on which he believes it is appropriate and proper to strike out the claim.
(on) The deletion of a claim under these regulations does not constitute Court action.
42. If the court believes that a litigant has abused legal proceedings, he may, on this basis alone, delete all or part of his pleadings.
מחיקת כתב תביעה על הסף הוא סעד קיצוני יחסית, ולרוב בית המשפט ינסה להימנע מכך, אלא אם כן המקרה עומד בתנאים שנקבעו בפסיקת בית המשפט העליון (ראו לדוגמה בע"מ 7367/22 פלונית נ' פלונית, פסק דין מיום 26.1.2023):
סמכותו של בית המשפט למחוק כתב תביעה, אם נמצא כי אינו מגלה עילת תביעה, מעוגנת כיום בתקנה 41(א)(1) לתקנות החדשות (גלגולה הקודם של תקנה זו, במסגרת התקנות הקודמות, היה נטוע בתקנה 100(1) לאותן תקנות, שבגדרה הוסמך בית המשפט "לצוות על מחיקת כתב תביעה", אם מצא כי "אין הכתב מראה עילת תביעה". גם הנוסח הקודם, אינו שונה באופן מהותי מהנוסח הנוכחי).
This authority has received relatively extensive attention in the case law, certainly in comparison to the case law's concern with the court's authority to issue a judgment in the pre-trial stage. For this reason too, we can benefit from examining this issue. As will be seen, the interpretation given by this court to the regulation dealing with the authority to strike out a claim outright is very close to the interpretation given by it in relation to the regulation dealing with the authority to issue a judgment in the pre-trial stage.
…
נמצא אפוא, כי מבחן 'סיכויי התביעה' עניינו, ככלל, בבחינה מקדמית של הטענות המשפטיות, שמעלה התובע בתביעתו. ואכן, לא אחת הובהר, כי במקרים המתאימים, יש לערוך בדיקה מקדמית זו, גם כאשר הדבר מצריך "הכרעה בשאלות חוק נכבדות, ואף כאלה שטרם נדונו במישרין בהלכה הפסוקה". בתום בדיקה זו, ובהתאם לממצאיה – Sometimes it will be appropriate to strike out the lawsuit outright, as long as this is the desired result.….
Dealing with a frivolous or vexatious claim by requiring a security deposit
Another way (and sometimes parallel to the previous actions) to deal with a frivolous or vexatious claim is to file a motion to require the plaintiff to post bail. Meaning Depositing the security deposit It is a guarantee of the defendant's expenses even before a judgment is rendered.
The defendant may submit this request by virtue of Regulation 157 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, which states as follows:
(A) The court may, if it deems it necessary, order a plaintiff to provide security for the payment of a defendant's expenses.
(on) If the guarantee is not provided within the prescribed time, the claim will be deleted.
בית המשפט העליון הדגיש שהדרישה להפקדת ערובה מאפשרת לתובע לנהל את תביעתו אך גם מגנה על זכויות הנתבע (ראו רע"א 5477/22 יחיאל אבוקרת נ' אקסודוס פירמיום 2015 בע"מ, פסק דין מיום 21.8.2022):
תקנה 157(א) לתקנות סדר הדין האזרחי, התשע"ט-2018 (להלן: תקנות סדר הדין האזרחי), מעניקה לבית המשפט סמכות לצוות על התובע לתת ערובה לתשלום הוצאות הנתבע (ההדגשות אינן במקור – ר"ר):
"בית המשפט רשאי, אם נראה לו הדבר, לצוות על תובע לתת ערובה לתשלום הוצאותיו של נתבע".
The purpose of this regulation is, on the one hand, to preserve the right of access to the courts and to ensure payment of the defendant's expenses at an early stage of the proceedings, and on the other hand, to deter the filing of frivolous claims. (ע"א 477/19 חברת ג'י בי אם בניה בע"מ נ' מנהל מע"מ לוד, פס' 8 לפסק דינו של השופט י' עמית (2.2.2021)).
Note: The court's authority to require a bail bond for the payment of legal costs relates only to the initiator of the proceedings, and this is for the purpose of Two main purposes. The first purpose, and the central one of the two, is to ensure the payment of the expenses of the passive party, the one upon whom the procedure was imposed, if the procedure against him is ultimately dismissed and expenses are discontinued in his favor.
The second purpose is to prevent abuse of the right of access to the courts and to deter the filing of frivolous proceedings. The requirement to deposit a security for costs serves as a means of distinguishing between a proceeding that the party initiating it believes to be justified and one that is filed for purely strategic reasons. (רע"א 7687/18 מנהל מע"מ לוד נ' מרעב חסן בנייה וסחר בע"מ, פס' 8 לפסק דינו של השופט ע' גרוסקופף (15.7.2020); רע"א 1378/21 ליאב יזמות וניהול פרוייקטים בע"מ נ' עו"ד משה תורג'מן, פס' 13 לפסק דינו של השופט ע' גרוסקופף (22.8.2021)).
In conclusion
The main problem with receiving a frivolous lawsuit is that this lawsuit will rob you of quite a bit of money, in the form of attorney fees that you will have to pay to have him represent you in court.
In a significant number of cases, the plaintiff knows that there is no chance that his claim will be accepted in court, and in fact has another goal, such as trying to pressure the defendant to agree to something the plaintiff wants.
מערכת המשפט לא מחבבת, בלשון המעטה, טיפול בתביעות סרק. תביעת סרק גוזלת גוזלת זמן שיפוטי יקר. בסיומה של תביעה קנטרנית התובע צפוי "לחטוף" הוצאות משפט בסכום משמעותי.
To deal with a frivolous claim, a request can be filed to strike out the claim and also a request to deposit security (if the request is accepted, the plaintiff will be forced to deposit a sum of money in the court's treasury to secure the defendant's expenses). If the plaintiff does not deposit the security, his claim will be struck out.
Frequently Asked Questions Regarding a Frivolous/Vexatious Claim
-
How can you deal with a frivolous or vexatious lawsuit?
It is possible to demand that a frivolous claim or vexatious claim be struck out outright and at the same time demand that the plaintiff be required to deposit a bond.
-
How do you know that a lawsuit is a frivolous lawsuit?
These are usually claims that are not supported by any evidence, there are no witnesses who can support the plaintiff's version, the claims are very general, and even if the plaintiff proves all of his claims, he still will not be able to receive the required relief.
-
How much does it cost to deal with a frivolous claim?
The amount of a lawyer's fee varies from case to case, and can reach very significant amounts. A frivolous lawsuit in which financial compensation in the amount of hundreds of thousands of shekels is required can easily reach fees in the amount of several tens of thousands of shekels.
-
At the end of a vexatious lawsuit, will the defendant necessarily receive his expenses?
It depends on the case, but usually even if the court orders the plaintiff to pay legal costs to the defendant, it does not necessarily order the plaintiff to pay all the costs that the defendant actually paid.
