Request to add evidence – What considerations will the court consider when adding evidence?

Before you read about a request to add evidence and in which cases it is necessary, it is important to first understand that in many legal proceedings it is not mandatory to submit all the evidence in your possession immediately. Filing the lawsuit. המסמכים אותם יש להגיש כאשר מגישים כתב טענות (כתב תביעה או כתב הגנה) קבועים בתקנה 15 לתקנות סדר הדין האזרחי, תשע"ט – 2018, אשר קובעת כך:

15. (A) Only these documents will be attached to the statement of claims and they will be appendices to the statement of claims:

1. A copy of a material document and any other document used as a basis for the claim in the statement of claims; if the document is not in his possession, it shall be indicated by whom or where it is located, to the best of the party's knowledge;
2. An opinion from a medical expert that the litigant intends to rely on during the trial.
3. In a claim for compensation for personal injury, the plaintiff will attach to the claim a waiver of medical confidentiality, prepared according to the wording of Form 1 in the First Appendix.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subregulation (a), a party may attach to the pleadings an opinion of an expert who is not in a medical matter.

exceptional: within A lawsuit in a speedy trial It is necessary to attach all evidence when filing the claim. Claim In a speedy trial היא תביעה שמוגבלת עד לסך של 75,000 אלף ש"ח והיא נועדה לסיים את ההליך בפרק זמן קצר הרבה יותר לעומת תביעה בסדר דין רגיל.

When is evidence presented during the prosecution?

Attachment of evidence without a request to attach evidence can be done at the submission stage. Affidavit of first witnessThe plaintiff presents his evidence first, followed by the defendant. This matter is stipulated in Regulation 66 of the Civil Procedure Regulations:

Unless otherwise required by the circumstances of the case, the prosecution's case will come first, followed by the defense's case; presenting rebuttal evidence requires permission from the court.

This means that in most legal proceedings, a request to add evidence will always come after the stage of submitting primary witness affidavits.

Is it possible to submit a request to add evidence after the evidentiary hearing?

The evidence discussion It is the hearing in which the parties and their witnesses are questioned on the basis of the affidavits of the main witness and the evidence they submitted (the evidentiary hearing can also be held without the submission of affidavits of the main witness, if so decided by the court, in which case the parties must submit their evidence during this hearing). Sometimes it becomes necessary to submit rebuttal evidence after the evidentiary hearing, and therefore there will be no escape from submitting a request to add evidence. There is a ruling that states that a request to add evidence can be submitted even at a very advanced stage, such as the stage of submitting the summaries.

It is important to understand that the further you progress in the procedure, the less likely the court will approve a request to add evidence.

The considerations that the court will consider when examining a request to adduce evidence

לאחרונה התבררה בפני בית המשפט המחוזי בתל אביב בקשה להוספת ראיה לאחר שהצדדים כבר הגישו תצהירי עדות ראשית מטעמם, אך לפני שהתקיים דיון ההוכחות. בית המשפט סקר במקרה זה בהרחבה רבה את הפסיקה הרלוונטית ואת השיקולים שיש לשקול בעת בחינת בקשה לצירוף ראיה (ת"א 63258-01-18 בי.פור.יו בע"מ נ' אנדימד מדיקל בע"מ, החלטה מיום 13.1.2022).

Among other things, the court ruled as follows:

which To the rule which requires the presentation of evidence as a single piece, בהתאם להלכה הפסוקה על בעל הדין להביא את ראיותיו ב"One package", אך לבית המשפט נתונה הסמכות לחרוג מכלל זה ולהתיר לבעל דין הגשת ראיות נוספות כאשר מדובר בראיה משמעותית הנושאת משקל של ממש לגילוי האמת וחשיפתה.

In this context, the court must take into account, among other things, the nature of the additional evidence; the stage of the trial, in the sense that the earlier the stage, the more likely it is that the application will be approved; whether the party could have presented the evidence at an earlier stage and why he did not do so; and the procedural damage that will be caused to the party opposing the presentation of the evidence, compared to the damage that may be caused to the applicant if his application to present it is rejected. (ר' ע"א 579/90 Rozin V. Ben-Nun, פ"ד מו(3) 738, 742-741; רע"א 2948/15 Hussein v. Development Authority,(פורסם בנבו, 1.7.15) פסקה 14; רע"א 4579/15 Cohen v. Oron (פורסם בנבו, 5.8.15) פסקה 8) (ר' רע"א 6165/15 Aerotel v. Cellcom et al. (Published in Nevo, 13.12.15)).

Among the considerations that the court will consider in a request to add evidence will be the nature of the additional evidence, i.e. whether it is technical evidence. It is also necessary to examine the stage of the proceedings, since the later the stage, the more likely the court will be to not grant the request. It is also necessary to examine the extent of the party's failure to provide the evidence in the delay, i.e. whether he should have known about the existence of the evidence earlier, and the contribution of the requested additional evidence to the discovery of the truth. (ר' רע"א 5403/17 רבקה טכנולוגיות נ' חברת כימיקלים לישראל בע"מ (Published in Nevo, 5.12.17).

…

כך גם נפסק ברע"א 4579/15 Cohen v. Tatiana (פורסם בנבו, 5.8.15), נקבע בין היתר כי לצידו של הכלל, שעל בעלי הדין להביא ראיותיהם במרוכז, הרי ש"In exceptional cases, the court will allow a deviation from the rule, when the contribution of the evidence to the discovery of the truth is so great that it violates the rules of procedure and procedural considerations (see רע"א 2715/13 Varda v. Israel Lands Administration, [published in Nevo] paragraph 4 (28.11.2013); Hussein case, paragraph 14).

In this context, the court will consider, among other things, the nature of the additional evidence; the stage the trial has reached; and whether the party requesting to submit the evidence knew or should have known about the existence of the evidence at an earlier stage (see רע"א 2137/02 ממן נ' פז חברת נפט בע"מ, [פורסם בנבו] פיסקה 3 (30.7.2002); רע"א 8366/14 Daphni v. Ohel Rachel Association, [Published in Nevo] paragraph 19 (27.1.2015))" (שם, סעיף 8).

…

לא שוכנעתי בשלב זה של הדיון כי היעתרות לבקשה לצירוף הראיה תפגע בנתבעים או תגרום להם לעיוות דין או לנזק כלשהו. בשלב זה של הדיון סבורני כי יש מקום לאפשר את צירוף הראיה וזאת על מנת שתיחשף האמת במלואה וייקל על בית המשפט לעשות מלאכתו באופן "Appropriate and fair in order to arrive at the truth and achieve a correct outcome and a just resolution of the conflict" (ר' תקנה 1 לתקסד"א–התשע"ט).

In this case, the court did accept the request to add evidence and determined that there was importance in investigating the truth, especially in light of the (relatively) early stage at which the request to add evidence was submitted (before the evidentiary hearing), אך במקביל, בית המשפט קבע שיש לחייב את מגישי הבקשה בהוצאות משפט לטובת הצד שהתנגד לבקשה בסכום של 10,000 ש"ח.

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding a Request to Add Evidence