A judgment given against you without a hearing feels final. In many cases it is not. Israeli civil procedure allows the court to annul a judgment given ex parte – typically a default judgment given because no statement of defense was filed in time – and to return the case to a hearing on the merits. The tool is the application to annul, and its power comes with a condition: it rewards speed, documentation and precision, and it punishes delay.
This guide walks through the procedure itself: the legal grounds, the documents, the deadlines, and the parallel moves – above all the stay of execution – that decide whether the application succeeds in practice.
First, Get on the Right Track: Annulment Is Not an Appeal
Choosing the wrong procedure is the most expensive mistake in this field. An application to annul attacks the process: it says the judgment was given without a real opportunity to defend, and asks the same court that gave it to cancel it. An appeal assumes the process was proper and argues the judge erred in law or on the facts – and it goes to a higher court. If the claim never reached you, the track is annulment. If you litigated and lost, the track is appeal. Filing the wrong one wastes the one resource these cases do not have: time.
The Two Legal Grounds for Annulment
Israeli case law recognizes two routes, and the distinction controls how the application is built.
- Annulment as a matter of justice. Reserved for a fundamental defect that denied the basic right to be heard – the classic case being defective service of the claim. Where the defect is proven, the court does not examine the strength of the defense at all: access to the court was denied, and the defect is repaired regardless of the case’s merits.
- Annulment at the court’s discretion. The common route: the claim was lawfully served, but no defense was filed in time. Here the applicant carries the burden on two cumulative questions – a convincing, documented explanation for the default, and genuine defense prospects worth hearing. Case law balances the two against each other: the stronger the defense prospects appear, the more flexibility the court may show on the explanation – but the defense prospects sit at the core.
Explanations courts have been willing to consider include documented human error, sudden hospitalization, emergency reserve duty, or a proven technical failure on the filing deadline. “I was busy” or “I forgot” is not an explanation; it reads as disregard for the process. Beyond the two standard routes sit rare grounds such as fraud on the court, where case law sets a demanding cumulative test: the new evidence must be seemingly credible, essential to the outcome, and such that it could not have been obtained earlier with reasonable diligence.
Building the Application: Three Components That Decide It
A sloppy or incomplete application can be dismissed before the judge reaches the substance. The complete package has three parts, and each one does different work.
The application is the legal skeleton. It states the ground – justice or discretion – anchors it in the Civil Procedure Regulations and case law, and navigates the judge to the evidence. It should be concise: the facts live in the affidavit, not here.
The affidavit is the evidentiary heart: the applicant’s sworn factual account, verified by a lawyer. It must do two things completely. First, explain the default chronologically – with dates and supporting documents: medical certificates, reserve-duty confirmations, proof of an outdated registered address. Second, present the defense prospects point by point, as if drafting the statement of defense itself. A general sentence like “I have a good defense” carries no weight. Contradictions between the affidavit and the documents are fatal to credibility; the other side will find every one of them.
The exhibits back every factual claim: a copy of the judgment, a full draft statement of defense, evidence for the reason of default, and evidence for the defense itself – correspondence, invoices, expert opinions where forgery is claimed, and a power of attorney if represented.
Filing is done electronically through the Net HaMishpat system by counsel; an unrepresented applicant files at the secretariat of the court that gave the judgment, with copies for the court, for each opposing party, and a stamped copy for the applicant.
The 30-Day Deadline – and What Starts the Clock
Regulation 131 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 2018 sets the window: where the court gave a decision ex parte and the party against whom it was given files a cancellation request within thirty days of the day the decision was served on him, the court may cancel it, on conditions it sees fit. Three practical points follow:
- The statutory count runs from service of the judgment. Where service itself was defective, the parties may litigate when the judgment actually came to the party’s knowledge – but knowledge is a fact the applicant must prove, not an assumption.
- The period runs from service of the judgment (Regulations 131 and 179(a)). Days of court recess are not counted, unless the court orders otherwise (Regulation 179(b)).
- Missed the window? The request can still be filed together with a motion for an extension of time, but the burden is heavier: an extension requires “special reasons” (Regulation 176(b)), and the court examines the justification for the delay itself against the finality the judgment creditor has acquired.
The Parallel Front: Stopping the Execution Office
Filing the application does not, by itself, stop collection. Without an explicit order, the judgment creditor can continue to levy accounts, vehicles and salary while the application is pending. The parallel move is an urgent motion for a stay of execution proceedings, and it is usually filed together with the application. The court weighs two things: the balance of convenience – the damage to the applicant if collection continues against the damage to the creditor from waiting – and the apparent strength of the annulment application. The court may condition a stay, or the annulment itself, on a monetary guarantee. The amount is discretionary and can be argued: strong documented defense prospects and a documented financial picture both work to lower it, and alternatives to cash, such as a bank guarantee, can sometimes be offered.
If the Application Is Rejected
A rejection is a blow, but it is a decision of a different kind: not a final judgment, but an interlocutory decision. Challenging it requires a motion for leave to appeal to a higher court. Under the current regulations a motion for leave is treated as an appeal for deadline purposes: 60 days from service of the decision (Regulations 134(a) and 137(a)). Leave is not a formality – the motion must show real appellate prospects or a genuine fear of injustice. One bounded precision: where the ex-parte judgment itself is appealed after a Regulation 131 cancellation request was decided, the appeal period runs from service of the decision on that request (Regulation 137(c)). In parallel, rejection is often the moment to test a negotiated settlement that caps the damage at a known cost.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does annulment mean I won the case?
No. Annulment turns the clock back to the moment before judgment: it allows the statement of defense to be filed and the case to be heard on the merits. The final outcome depends on the evidence and arguments in the main case.
Do I have to pay the debt while the application is pending?
Not automatically – but only a stay order stops collection. Filing the application alone leaves every enforcement tool available to the creditor, which is why the stay motion is an emergency measure, filed immediately.
The court demands a guarantee I cannot afford. Now what?
Argue it. The guarantee amount is discretionary: present documented defense prospects to show the case is real, and documented finances to show that a high deposit would empty the annulment of content. Alternatives to a cash deposit can be proposed.
A Judgment Without a Hearing Is a Procedural Problem With a Procedural Answer
Our firm represents companies and individuals in applications to annul default judgments, urgent stays of execution, and the rehearing that follows – including cross-border service and enforcement issues. If a judgment was entered against you or your company, send us the judgment and the date it reached you, and we will map the fastest route back.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and their application depend on the facts and jurisdiction and may change. Although we aim to keep this information accurate and current, we do not guarantee that it is complete or up to date. The article may contain omissions or errors. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship with RNC Group. Before making a decision or taking action, seek advice from a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction.