Splitting remedies is a very important legal issue that many people do not consider. Sometimes ignoring the issue of splitting remedies may even lead to the plaintiff losing some of the remedies he is entitled to due to improper conduct on his part.
כלל ידוע הוא שיש לכלול בכתב התביעה את מלוא הסעד שהתובע זכאי לו בשל עילת תביעה, והוא לא יוכל לתבוע בתביעה נפרדת את מה שהוא לא תבע. עניין זה מוסדר בתקנה 25 לתקנות סדר הדין האזרחי, תשע"ט – 2018, אשר קובעת כך:
(a) A plaintiff shall include in a statement of claim the full relief to which he claims he is entitled due to the cause of action and shall not be able to file a claim for the portion he did not claim.
(b) A plaintiff shall include in the statement of claim all the remedies sought for a single cause of action, unless the court has permitted him or the law permits him not to sue within the framework of that claim; permission from the court shall not be granted except within the framework of a request for the division of remedies.
(c) The court will decide on the motion to divide remedies by the end of the pre-trial period.
For example: A person wishes to sue another person for a million shekels, but at the moment he can pay a court fee of up to one hundred thousand shekels. For this reason, that person files a lawsuit, without a separate request for the purpose of splitting the remedies, and only claims one hundred thousand shekels. Under these circumstances, that plaintiff will not be able to claim the balance at a later stage.
Please note: In accordance with Regulation 25(b) of the Regulations Civil procedureThe division of remedies must be requested in a separate request and not as a separate clause in the statement of claim.
Is there an obligation to request the division of remedies when the required remedy is not within the jurisdiction of the court hearing the claim?
Let's consider the following case for example: Submitted Claim For the decision of The condominium supervisor. As part of the lawsuit, it is alleged that the defendant built a pergola in a manner that infringes on the plaintiff's property and the common property of the other tenants in the condominium building. The plaintiff demands that the condominium supervisor order the defendant to remove the pergola, and at the same time the plaintiff also wishes to receive financial compensation for the damages he suffered.
In this situation, the plaintiff is in a certain trap. If he demands financial compensation for the damages caused to him by the defendant, then the defendant will be able to file a motion for summary dismissal because the condominium inspector has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear tort claims. In the example detailed above, all the inspector can decide is the matter of removing the pergola (without ruling on financial compensation).
Should the plaintiff in this case request a division of remedies? The answer is no. Since the condominium supervisor has no substantive authority to hear a tort claim, there is no need to request a division of remedies, and an additional claim can be filed and claim financial compensation even without a division of remedies (in the case in the example – an additional claim can be filed with the Magistrate's Court or the Small Claims Court, or even the District Court, all depending on the amount of the damage and the amount of the claim).
In real estate matters, there is an exception to the issue of splitting the remedies - in these cases, the claim is filed with the court that is authorized to hear the primary remedy and includes in the same statement of claim the secondary remedy (the ancillary remedy), even if it is not within the jurisdiction of that court.
Supreme Court rulings on the issue of splitting remedies
Many examples of Supreme Court rulings on the issue of splitting remedies can be found:
רע"א 6581/19 קבוצת שיא ניהול פרויקטים בע"מ נ' אברהם אלתר קוסטינר ואח' (החלטה מיום 5.4.2020) – פיצול סעדים בתביעות מקרקעין:
על פי הלכת עקריש, אשר ידועה גם כ"הלכת פיצול הסעדים", אדם המבקש לתבוע סעד כספי לצד סעד שאינו כספי, וכל אחד מהסעדים מצוי בסמכותה של ערכאה שיפוטית אחרת, יידרש הוא לפצל את תביעתו בין הערכאות המתאימות. יוער כי הלכה זו צומצמה במידה מה ביחס לתחולתה לגבי סעדים במקרקעין, בין היתר בעקבות קביעת הכלל בדבר "הטפל הולך אחר העיקר". לפי כלל זה, Where two remedies related to real estate are claimed, even if they are subject to the subject-matter jurisdiction of different courts, they will be heard before the court competent to determine the main remedy.…
רע"א 7703/17 ורדה אחימן נ' המועצה המקומית פרדס חנה – כרכור (החלטה מיום 25.10.2017) – פיצול סעדים בעניין סעד הצהרתי וסעד אופרטיבי:
…."הלכה פסוקה היא, כי 'הזוכה בסעד הצהרתי רשאי לתבוע גם סעד אופרטיבי הנובע מאותה עילה ואין לו צורך בהיתר לפיצול סעדים'" (ע"א 7746/11 נציגות הבניין ברחוב רוטשילד 78 ראשון לציון נ' סטריקובסקי, [פורסם בנבו] פסקה 22 לחוות דעתי (24.10.2013), על סמך האמור בע"א 10474/03 הכהן נ' מלונות הים התיכון בע"מ, [פורסם בנבו] פסקה 18 (24.11.2005) (להלן: עניין הכהן); אורי גורן סוגיות בסדר דין אזרחי 314-313 (מהדורה שתים-עשרה, 2015)).
…
סוגיית פיצול הסעדים מבוססת במידה רבה על שאלת קיומו של השתק עילה, והדברים שלובים זה בזה: "פסק דין הצהרתי אינו מונע מכוח הכלל של Mute reason תובענה לסעד אחר, אף אם בעת הגשת התובענה לסעד הצהרתי התגבשה כבר לתובע עילה לסעד מהותי, אך הוא העדיף לתבוע בשלב הראשון סעד הצהרתי בלבד. לפיכך, בהתאם לגישה זו אין התובע זקוק להיתר לפיצול סעדיו" (עניין הכהן, פסקה 18; וראו נינה זלצמן Court action In Civil Procedure 134-124 (1991)).
ע"א 1020/06 הניה קרצר נ' בנק לאומי לישראל בע"מ (החלטה מיום 13.1.2010) – פיצול סעדים בתביעה כספית:
The rule is that a plaintiff is required to claim all damages incurred by him due to a particular cause of action in a single claim, and if he does not do so, he is prevented from returning and claiming what he missed. (ראו, תקנה 44 לתקנות סדר הדין האזרחי, התשמ"ד-1984 (להלן – תקנות סדר הדין האזרחי); עניין לב יסמין, עמ' 454). כאשר מדובר בסעדים שונים, רשאי התובע לבקש היתר לפיצול סעדים (תקנה 45 לתקנות סדר הדין האזרחי).
However, permission cannot be obtained to split remedies when it involves splitting the same remedy. (ע"א 532/86 המועצה לייצור ולשיווק של פרחי נוי נ' פרחי שומרון סלע בע"מ, פ"ד מג(1) 252 (1989)). במקרה דנא, שני רכיבי הפיצוי, בגין נזקי גוף ובגין Mental anguish, are in the nature of a monetary remedy. This characteristic may be sufficient to make them a single remedy that cannot be divided (see, Lev Yasmin, p. 455). There is no need to decide this question, since the appellants did not request, and in any event did not receive, permission to divide the remedies.
Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Splitting Remedies
-
Is it possible to file two lawsuits against the same defendant on the same date without a decision on the division of remedies?
Usually, without the court's approval, this cannot be done. There must be a decision regarding the division of the remedies.
The exception to this is if the remedies are within the subject matter jurisdiction of different courts (for example: during a dispute, neighbors usually file a claim with the condominium supervisor. The supervisor does not have the authority to hear tort claims, and therefore two claims can be split and filed at the same time. One claim with the condominium supervisor and the other with the Magistrate's Court or Small Claims Court).
-
I filed a lawsuit and then the defendant caused me additional damage. Should I request a split of remedies?
If the cause of action was formed after the first claim was filed, there is no need to request permission to split remedies and another claim can be filed.
-
What might happen if I did not file a request for separation of remedies and filed two different lawsuits against the same defendant?
In such a case, one of the claims may be deleted.
For reasons of efficiency, some judges will attempt to consolidate the two claims and hear them as one claim (if both claims were filed in the same court). The defendant will usually object to such a proposal.
-
What should be specified in a request for division of remedies?
The court must be convinced why it is appropriate to allow the plaintiff to file more than one lawsuit against the same defendant (thus dragging the defendant into two different proceedings, with all the costs and hassle that entails).
That is, the plaintiff must convince the court that he cannot pursue a single lawsuit for all the damages he suffered from the defendant because he may not be aware of all the damages at this stage.
