Insurance Contract

Boaron v. National Labour Court

Case/docket number: 
HCJ 5492/07
Date Decided: 
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Decision Type: 
Original
Abstract: 

Facts: Four widows who had each been receiving either a dependents allowance or a survivors allowance in accordance with the provisions of the National Insurance Law [Consolidated Version], 5755-1995, received notices from the National Insurance Institute indicating that their allowances had been discontinued — as of the time that the Institute had determined that each had begun living together with a new partner in a common-law marriage.  After the relevant regional labour courts ruled in favor of the petitioners, the National Labour Court upheld the discontinuation of the allowances for all of them.

 

Held: The National Labour Court’s decision involved no substantive legal error requiring the intervention of the High Court of Justice. Sections 255 and 262 of the National Insurance Law refer to the discontinuation of a survivor’s allowance to a widow who has remarried; s. 135 refers to the discontinuation of a dependents allowance to a widow who has remarried. Neither section refers specifically to remarriage in the context of a common-law relationship. However, the statute’s definitional section specifically defines a wife as including a common-law wife, and it is this definition that entitles a woman whose common-law husband has died in either a work accident or of natural causes to receive the relevant type of allowance on the same ground that an “official” widow receives such an allowance. The question to be decided, therefore, is whether the provisions relating to the discontinuation of the allowance upon remarriage, as outlined in the above-mentioned sections, apply to widows or widowers who have entered into common-law relationships as well as to those who have officially remarried.

 

The statute must be interpreted in light of its purpose and in light of its specific language. The purpose of both allowances is to provide financial support to a person after the death of his or her partner whose income had provided support; this support is discontinued at the time of a remarriage under the assumption that the new couple will be pooling income and sharing expenses and that the support from the National Insurance Institute is no longer necessary. This is also why the allowance is generally renewed if the second marriage ends within a certain period of time. This purpose supports the cancellation of benefits to widows and widowers who have entered into common-law relationships, as they too are benefiting from the financial aspects of a shared household, given that the existence of such a shared household is a prerequisite for a determination that a relationship reaches the level of a common-law marriage.

 

The petitioners had argued that common-law relationships and official marriages should not be deemed comparable in terms of the level of support provided, due to the relative instability of a common-law relationship which has not been formalized through a wedding ceremony. This argument fails because the statutory provisions regarding the renewal of allowances upon the conclusion of a remarriage would also apply to the termination of a common-law relationship, so that the supposed relative instability of the latter form of relationship is not a relevant consideration.

 

The statutory language also supports the determination that a common-law wife should lose her entitlement to a survivors or dependents allowance. The definition of a wife in the definitional section expressly refers to a common-law wife, and nothing else in the text of the statute contradicts the inclusion of a common-law relationship within the definition of remarriage. The fact that the provisions pertaining to the cancellation of a right to an allowance refer to specific dates such as the date of a marriage or of the dissolution of a marriage does not conflict with this interpretation; the National Insurance Institute is able to make determinations regarding the beginning and ending of a common-law relationship as well, albeit not as easily as in the case of an official marriage.

 

Petitions denied.

Voting Justices: 
Primary Author
majority opinion
majority opinion
Author
concurrence
majority opinion
Author
concurrence
Author
concurrence
Author
concurrence
Full text of the opinion: 

HCJ 5492/07

HCJ 7677/07

HCJ 4820/08

 

Petitioner in 5492/07:                     Smadar Boaron

Petitioner in 7677/07:                     Noah Kariv

Petitioners in 4820/08:                                                   1. Malka Stier

                                                                                2. Shulamit Gabay Galoni

                                                                                3. Cheli Juliet

 

v.

National Labour Court

National Insurance Institute       

 

The Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice

[21 July 2009]

 

Before President D. Beinisch, Deputy President E. Rivlin, and Justices A. Procaccia, E. Levy, E. Arbel, E. Hayut, H. Melcer

 

Petitions for an order ¬nisi and for an interim order.

 

Facts: Four widows who had each been receiving either a dependents allowance or a survivors allowance in accordance with the provisions of the National Insurance Law [Consolidated Version], 5755-1995, received notices from the National Insurance Institute indicating that their allowances had been discontinued — as of the time that the Institute had determined that each had begun living together with a new partner in a common-law marriage.  After the relevant regional labour courts ruled in favor of the petitioners, the National Labour Court upheld the discontinuation of the allowances for all of them.

Held: The National Labour Court’s decision involved no substantive legal error requiring the intervention of the High Court of Justice. Sections 255 and 262 of the National Insurance Law refer to the discontinuation of a survivor’s allowance to a widow who has remarried; s. 135 refers to the discontinuation of a dependents allowance to a widow who has remarried. Neither section refers specifically to remarriage in the context of a common-law relationship. However, the statute’s definitional section specifically defines a wife as including a common-law wife, and it is this definition that entitles a woman whose common-law husband has died in either a work accident or of natural causes to receive the relevant type of allowance on the same ground that an “official” widow receives such an allowance. The question to be decided, therefore, is whether the provisions relating to the discontinuation of the allowance upon remarriage, as outlined in the above-mentioned sections, apply to widows or widowers who have entered into common-law relationships as well as to those who have officially remarried.

The statute must be interpreted in light of its purpose and in light of its specific language. The purpose of both allowances is to provide financial support to a person after the death of his or her partner whose income had provided support; this support is discontinued at the time of a remarriage under the assumption that the new couple will be pooling income and sharing expenses and that the support from the National Insurance Institute is no longer necessary. This is also why the allowance is generally renewed if the second marriage ends within a certain period of time. This purpose supports the cancellation of benefits to widows and widowers who have entered into common-law relationships, as they too are benefiting from the financial aspects of a shared household, given that the existence of such a shared household is a prerequisite for a determination that a relationship reaches the level of a common-law marriage.

The petitioners had argued that common-law relationships and official marriages should not be deemed comparable in terms of the level of support provided, due to the relative instability of a common-law relationship which has not been formalized through a wedding ceremony. This argument fails because the statutory provisions regarding the renewal of allowances upon the conclusion of a remarriage would also apply to the termination of a common-law relationship, so that the supposed relative instability of the latter form of relationship is not a relevant consideration.

The statutory language also supports the determination that a common-law wife should lose her entitlement to a survivors or dependents allowance. The definition of a wife in the definitional section expressly refers to a common-law wife, and nothing else in the text of the statute contradicts the inclusion of a common-law relationship within the definition of remarriage. The fact that the provisions pertaining to the cancellation of a right to an allowance refer to specific dates such as the date of a marriage or of the dissolution of a marriage does not conflict with this interpretation; the National Insurance Institute is able to make determinations regarding the beginning and ending of a common-law relationship as well, albeit not as easily as in the case of an official marriage.

Petitions denied.

Legislation cited:

 

Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.

Civil Wrongs Ordinance [New Version], 5728-1968.

Families of Soldiers Killed in Action Law (Pensions and Rehabilitation), 5710-1950.

Income Support Law, 5741-1980.

Inheritance Law, 5725-1965.

Interpretation Law, 5741-1981, s. 2.

Names Law, 5716-1956.

National Insurance Law [Consolidated Version], 5755-1995, ss. 1, 130(b), 135(a)-(c), 238, 255(b)-(d), 262.

National Insurance Regulations (Dependents allowance for Remarried Widows), 5737-1976.

Public Service Law (Pensions) [Consolidated Version], 5730-1970.

Israeli Supreme Court cases cited:

[1] HCJ 6522/06 Kochavi v. the Jerusalem Labour Court (2009) (not yet reported).

[2] HCJ 8929/08 Ben Nun v. National Labour Court (2009) (not yet reported).

[3] HCJ 525/84 Hatib v. National Labour Court [1986] IsrSC 40(1) 673.

[4] HCJ 840/03 Israel Professional Firefighters Union — Firefighters Committee v. Jerusalem Labour Court [2003] IsrSC 57(6) 810.

[5] HCJ 5666/03 Kav LaOved Organization v. National Labour Court (2007) (not yet reported).

[6] MApp 67/84 Hadad v. Paz [1985] IsrSC 39(1) 667.

[7] CA 2000/97 Lindorn v. Kranit Fund for Compensation of Road Accident Victims [1999] IsrSC 55(1) 12.

[8] CA 8569/06 Director of Land Taxation, Haifa Office v. Polity (2008) (not yet reported).

[9] CA 3622/96 Hacham v. Kupat Holim “Maccabi” [1998] IsrSC 52(2) 638.

[10] FH 40/80 Kenig v. Cohen, [1982] IsrSC 36(3) 701.

[11] LCA 3899/04 State of Israel v. Even Zohar (2006) (unreported).

[12] HCJ 6247/04 Gorodetzki v. Minister of Interior [12],(2010) (not yet reported).

[13] AAA 4614/05  State of Israel v. Oren (2006) (unreported).

[14] CA 1966/07 Ariel v. Egged Members Pension Fund Ltd (2010) (unreported).

[15] HCJ 2316/05 A v. National Labour Court (2005) (unreported).

[16] HCJ 4193/04 Gartner-Goldschmidt v. National Labour Court (2010) (not yet reported).

[17] HCJ 953/87 Poraz v. Mayor of Tel Aviv Shlomo Lahat [1988]  IsrSC42(2) 309.

[18] HCJ 6427/02 Movement for Quality Government v. Knesset (2006) (unreported).

[19] HCJ 4124/00 Yekutieli v. Minister of Religion (2010) (not yet reported).

[20] HCJFH 4191/97 Recanat v. National Labour Court [2000] IsrSC 54(5) 330.

[21] CrimA 4341/99 Vidal v. State of Israel [1999] IsrSC 54(3) 329.

[22] CA 2622/01 Director of Land Appreciation Tax v. Levanon [2002] IsrSC 57(5) 309.

[23] CA 165/82 Kibbutz Hatzor v. Rehovot Assessment Officer [1985] IsrSC 39(2) 70.

[24] CA 1186/93 State of Israel, Minister of Justice v. Israel Discount Bank Ltd [1994] IsrSC 48(5) 353.

[25] HCJ 5304/02 Israel Association of Victims of Work Accidents and Widows of Victims of Work Accidents v. State of Israel, Knesset [2004] IsrSC 59(2) 134.

[26] HCJ 8487/03 IDF Disabled Veterans Organization v. Minister of Defense (2006) (unreported).

[27] HCJ 9863/06 Karan - Society of Combat Veteran Quadriplegics v. State of Israel - Minister of Health (2008) (not yet reported).

[28] HCJ 693/91 Efrat v. Director of the Population Registry [1993] IsrSC 47(1) 749.

[29] HCJ 6304/09 Lahav v. Attorney General (2010) (not yet reported).

[30] CA 233/98 Katz v. Keren Makefet [2000] IsrSC 54(5) 493.

 

Labour Court cases cited:

[31] NLC 54/85-0 Ornan v. National Insurance Institute [1994] ILC 27 400.

[32] NIIApp1407/04 NII v. Friman (2006) (not yet reported).

[33] NIIApp 731/07 Kirshner v. NII (2009) (not yet reported).

[34] NIIApp 1212/04 Apter v. NII  [2005] ILC 40 461.

[35] NLC 30/19-0 NII v. Mano [1970] ILC 2 (1) 72.

[36] NLC 52/69-0 Leon v. NII [1992] ILC 24(1) 458.

[37] NLC 53/6-7 Batar v. Central Pension Fund of Histradrut Workers, Ltd [1994] ILC 27(1) 135.

[38] NLC 57/6-2 Central Pension Fund of Histradrut Workers, Ltd v. Kochavi (1997) (unreported).

[39] NIIApp 1169/01 Avital v. NII (2004) (unreported).

[40] NIIApp 779/06 NII v. Wolkowitz (2008) (not yet reported).

[41] NLC 56/255-0 Atar v. NII [1997] ILC 32 385.

 

For the petitioner in HCJ 5492/07 — T. Shilo.

For the petitioner in HCJ 7677/07 — N. Ashar; N. Weinberg-Eyal.

For the petitioners in HCJ 4820/08 — Y. Sirota; O Turner-Sternberg.

For respondent 2 — O. Rosen-Amir; T. Kazari.

 

 

JUDGMENT

Justice E. Hayut

Is a widow, who has not officially remarried but who is living as a common-law wife, to be treated as a widow who has remarried and is therefore no longer entitled to a survivors or a dependents allowance? This is the main question we face in the petitions that have been joined here for the purpose of deliberation.

The petitioners

1.            The petitioner in HCJ 5492/07, Ms. Smadar Boaron (hereinafter: “Boaron”), was widowed on 27 October 1996 and began receiving a dependents allowance from respondent 2 (hereinafter: “the NII” or “the Institute”). In 1998, Boaron began to live with her current partner, Mr. Tzachi Fink (hereinafter: “Fink”), first in a rented apartment and later in an apartment that the two purchased together in Rishon LeZion. Boaron and Fink never married (Boaron has stated that she did not feel confident regarding a marriage to Fink because he is five years younger than she is), but approximately eight years ago, she attached the name Fink to her family name. Two children were born to the couple — a son on 14 July 1999, and a daughter on 21 August 2003. On 16 May 2004, the NII informed Boaron that in light of information it received regarding her case, it considered her to be a “married woman” as of 14 July 1999 (the date on which the couple’s son was born), that her entitlement to a dependents allowance had therefore expired and that she was instead entitled to a one-time grant. After delivering this notice, the NII stopped paying Boaron a dependents allowance, and it deducted, from the one-time grant it paid to her, the amount of the allowances paid to her since the day as of which, as stated, the NII considered her to be a married woman.

2.            The petitioner in HCJ 7677/07, Ms. Noah Kariv (hereinafter: “Kariv”), was widowed on 15 July 1998 and began receiving a survivors allowance from the NII. Kariv lives with her life partner, Mr. Eliezer Lavie (hereinafter: “Lavie”), in his home on Kibbutz Ein Hashofet (hereinafter: “the Kibbutz”). On 1 August 2002, in order to arrange the mutual rights and obligations resulting from Kariv’s residence on the Kibbutz, the couple signed an agreement with the Kibbutz, according to which all of Kariv’s financial affairs would be conducted through Lavie’s personal budget, and he would be responsible to the Kibbutz for all her obligations. In a letter dated 24 February 2005, the NII informed Kariv that her survivors allowance had been revoked retroactively, from 1 August 2002, the date on which the said agreement with the Kibbutz was signed. The letter also informed her that she was entitled to a one-time grant instead of the allowance.

3.            Petitioner 1 in HCJ 4820/08, Ms. Malka Steir (hereinafter: “Steir”), was widowed on 8 March 1981 and began receiving a dependents allowance from the NII. Steir’s husband was killed in a work accident when serving as first mate on the ship Masada, which sank, and their son was born after his death (on 9 November 1981). At some point, Steir began to live with Mr. Eli Tasman, and their daughter was born on 10 April 1989. In March 2004, the NII informed Steir that it would no longer pay her a dependents allowance because it considered her to be a “married woman” as of 18 September 1994 (the date on which the National Labour Court rendered a decision in NLC 54/85-0 Ornan v. National Insurance Institute [31], to which I will refer below).

4.            Petitioner 2 in HCJ 4820/08, Ms. Shulamit Gabay Galoni (hereinafter: “Gabay Galoni”), was widowed in February of 1980 and began receiving a dependents allowance from the NII for herself and for her two daughters. After her daughters grew up, Gabay Galoni continued to receive a dependents allowance for herself only. Gabay Galoni has been living with Mr. Meir Galoni since 1991 and two children have been born to them — a son on 10 September 1991 and a daughter on 1 February 1993. The couple has no agreement between them. In May of 2003, the NII stopped paying the dependents allowance to Gabay Galoni, and a month later they informed her that the payment had been discontinued because the NII considered her to be a “married woman” as of 18 September 1994 (the date on which, as stated, the said decision was rendered in Ornan v. National Insurance Institute [31]).

5.            Petitioner 3 in HCJ 4280/08, Ms. Cheli Juliet (hereinafter: “Juliet”), was widowed in 1991 and began receiving a survivors allowance from the NII. Juliet has lived with Mr. Yigal Erez (hereinafter: “Erez”) since 1998. On 18 October 2004, the NII informed Juliet that her entitlement to a survivors allowance had ended as of 1 February 1998, the date on which she became Erez’ common-law wife. The NII also informed Juliet that because the payment of the allowance had been discontinued, she owed a debt in the amount of NIS 54,231; however, on 28 June 2005 it notified her that this debt had been cancelled. In any event, the NII discontinued its payment of a survivors allowance to Juliet as of 1 March 2004.

In light of the NII’s decision to discontinue its payments of survivors allowances and dependents allowances to these petitioners, they filed claims in the regional labour courts that focused on the question of whether a widow who has not remarried but who lives as a common-law wife is entitled to continue receiving a survivors allowance or a dependents allowance from the NII.

The judgments in the regional labour courts

6.            On 10 October 2005 the Nazareth Regional Labour Court allowed Kariv’s claim, and held that ss. 255 and 262 of the National Insurance Law prescribe the circumstances under which a remarried widow’s entitlement to a dependents allowance ends and those under which a remarried widow’s entitlement is reinstated. The court also held that the legislature had chosen to use “phrases that refer only to the world of marriage, in its original and narrow meaning.” The Nazareth Regional Labour Court also held that the denial of a spouse’s rights was not possible without an express statutory provision and that —

‘… the application of the provisions of s. 255 of the [National Insurance] Law to a “common-law wife/husband” requires additional changes in the section, apart from changing the word “married woman” wherever it appears to “common-law wife”; therefore, and in view of the case-law rule regarding a common-law wife/husband, it cannot be that this obstacle can simply be removed in some way other than a legislative change.’

On 20 May 2007, the Haifa Regional Labour Court joined in this holding and ruled in favor of Juliet. The court held that since the legislature had used clear language, according to which only a remarried widow would lose her entitlement to an allowance —

‘We cannot accept the argument that a widow who has begun a relationship with a new partner without formally marrying him is no longer entitled to a survivors allowance. Since the legislature determined that entitlement to an allowance lapses only upon the widow’s remarriage, only the act of marriage can cancel her right to an allowance, and no other act — including her becoming the common-law wife of another man — can do so.’

The court referred in its judgment to the decision of Vice President Elisheva Barak Ososkin in NIIApp  1407/04 National Insurance Institute  v. Friman [32], and held that “when there is no commitment by way of marriage, a person who has a common-law husband should not lose entitlement to a survivors allowance, because the institution of common-law marriage is not a stable one.”

7.            Regarding s. 135 of the National Insurance Law, the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Regional Labour Court granted Boaron’s claim against the NII, and held that according to the National Insurance Law [Consolidated Version] 5755-1995 (hereinafter: “the National Insurance Law”), entitlement to a dependents allowance expires only upon a widow’s remarriage and that “only the act of marriage will cancel [the widow’s] entitlement to the allowance, and no other act will do this, including her becoming another person’s ‘common-law wife’”. The Regional Labour Court held further that in light of the statutory language, s. 135 of the National Insurance Law cannot be applied to a widow who has become the common-law wife of another man, and noted that the section deals with the “specific dates on which a widow’s entitlement to a dependents allowance lapses or is renewed, and all those dates refer to the date of the marriage”; furthermore,  “regarding a person who is a common-law wife, it is clear that the dates of the beginning of the relationship, as well as its end, are not formal and clear, and therefore they cannot fall within the framework of the said section.” The Regional Labour Court rejected the NII’s claims that the National Labour Court’s holding in Ornan v. National Insurance Institute [31] supports the said interpretation of s. 135 of the National Insurance Law, and held that in the case before it, “the terms that are repeated, and under which the expiration of entitlement to an allowance, and the entitlement to a grant, are tied to specific dates, which are connected to the marriage process — all these lead me to the conclusion that the legislature’s intention regarding this section, given that it used the term “married”, was to refer to official marriage, and not to the institution of “common-law spouses”. In the end, the Regional Labour Court held that the same result will be reached upon a comparison to the Families of Soldiers Killed in Action Law (Pensions and Rehabilitation), 5710-1950 (hereinafter: the “Families of Soldiers Killed in Action Law”).

On 7 February 2006, the Haifa Regional Labour Court granted Gabay Galoni’s claim, referring, inter alia, to the judgment rendered in Boaron’s case. On 10 May 2006, the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Regional Labour Court also adopted this position in granting Steir’s claim against the NII.

The NII appealed all these decisions to the National Labour Court.

The judgments in the National Labour Court

8.            On 28 March 2007, the National Labour Court (President S. Adler, Judge Y. Plitman and S. Tzur, and public representatives Mr. A. Ben Gera and Y. Ben Yehuda) allowed the appeal brought by the NII against the decisions of the Regional Labour Courts in the matters of Boaron and Kariv, and held that the two should be viewed as remarried widows and that the provisions of ss. 135 and 255 of the National Insurance Law should be applied to each of them respectively (hereinafter: the “Boaron case”). The National Labour Court noted that under s. 1 of the National Insurance Law, the term “his wife” is defined as “including his common-law wife who lives with him,” and held that the Law equates the common-law wife to a married woman “and in any event it equates a widow with a common-law widow [sic].” The National Labour Court referred to Judge Plitman’s decision in NII v. Friman [32], in which he held as follows:

‘The question that arises is whether it may be concluded from the use of the expression, “a widow who has remarried” that the intention was to exclude a widow who conducts a full family life with a partner but has not been officially married . . .

[This question] should be answered in the negative for three reasons:

First, because of the reason underlying the objective of the law. The dependents allowance is an allowance which replaces the income brought by the spouse into the household — because the widow runs the household by herself after her husband’s death. Since the widow has now returned to sharing a household and family life with a life partner, she is again receiving support for the household finances, and therefore, in light of the purpose of the payment of the allowance as stated, she is no longer entitled to receive a dependents allowance.

This objective calls for a legal rule that does not distinguish between the law as it is applied to a widow who has officially remarried, and a widow who is a common-law wife. If we were to interpret the statutory language differently, there would be unjustified discrimination against the officially remarried widow whose financial support is discontinued, as opposed to the widow who has established a new family unit without anchoring it through participation in a marriage ceremony, whose allowance does not expire.

Secondly — the non-expiration of entitlement to a dependents allowance for a widow who has established a new home with a common-law husband would create an absurd situation in which, on the one hand, the legislature does not recognize the institution of common-law spouses and a widow therefore does not lose her entitlement to a dependents allowance even if she has reestablished a home with a common-law husband, and on the other hand, it does recognize the concept of a common-law spouse and grants a dependents allowance to a woman whose life partner, the common-law husband, passes away . . .

Thirdly — the absurdity arising from the non-expiration of the entitlement to a dependents allowance for a widow who has established a new home with a common-law husband is exacerbated in the case in which her common-law husband dies as a result of a work accident. In such a case, according to my colleague the Vice President, the widow would enjoy, in theory, a simultaneous double entitlement to two dependents allowances: one due to the death of her [non-common-law] husband and another due to the death of her common-law husband.

The legislature’s objective in establishing entitlement to a dependents allowance for a common-law wife whose life partner died is the same objective as we face here — a perception of the status of the common-law wife as being equal to that of a married woman, at least for the purpose of entitlement to a dependents allowance through which a widow is paid an allowance after the death of her life partner’ (ibid., at paras. 9-12).

The National Labour Court further held that a widow who is a common-law wife should also be viewed as a remarried widow with regard to the conversion of a survivors allowance to a survivors grant, noting that in the same way that a common-law wife is viewed as a married woman, a widow who has become a common-law wife should be considered as having married. The National Labour Court emphasized that this was not only a matter of denial of entitlement to an allowance; it also involved the creation of an equivalence in relation to entitlement to an allowance while providing grants to a remarried widow, and it therefore rejected the argument that there was a violation of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. The National Labour Court also held that the date on which a common-law wife was deemed to have married is not determined arbitrarily, and that her entitlement to a grant (and the suspension of her allowance) begins “on the day on which it can be determined that she meets the definition in s. 1 of the National Insurance Law — ‘his common-law wife who lives with him’ — on the basis of an established factual foundation.” For all of the above-mentioned reasons, the National Labour Court held that Boaron and Kariv were to be treated as remarried widows. As the court wrote:

‘What reason is there for distinguishing between these two women whose cases are before us, who have lived with their partners for several years, and who are raising children with them, conducting a joint household, a new family unit, and following a mutual declaration of their relationship in the form of a financial agreement — and those women who have anchored their relationships with their partners through a religious ceremony? Any distinction that is made between the two cases is basically discriminatory and misses the legislative intent to anchor the status of the common-law wife in the definitional section of the National Insurance Law by defining the term “his wife” as “including his common-law wife who lives with him,” thus viewing the status of the common-law wife as being equivalent to that of a married woman’ (para. 14).

Finally, the National Labour Court held that the fact that a couple did not have joint ownership of any assets would not change its ruling, and that the date of expiration of the entitlement to an allowance should be established in each case on the basis of the particular factual circumstances.

9.            On 19 March 2008, the National Labour Court (President S. Adler, Judges J. Plitman and V. Virt-Livne and public representatives S. Habshush and J. Deutsch) also allowed the NII’s appeals of the judgments rendered by the regional labour courts in the suits brought by Gabay Galoni, Juliet and Steir, and held that they should be viewed as remarried widows (hereinafter: the “Gabay Galoni case”). The court repeated its holding that “a narrow interpretation of the term ‘remarried’ whereby it applies only to a widow who has undergone a marriage ceremony and not to a widow who has become a common-law wife leads to an unjustified favoring of the common-law wife over a woman who has been married in a formal ceremony, when the purpose of the law is to create an equivalence between the two.” The National Labour Court further held that the relevant provisions of the National Insurance Law should be interpreted in accordance with the other provisions of that Law, and not in accordance with the interpretation of the Families of Soldiers Killed in Action Law.

The petitions before us relate to these judgments, and following a hearing held in this Court on 3 November 2008, we issued an order nisi on 4 November 2008 ordering the NII to explain why the National Labour Court’s holding, that the meaning of the term “a widow who has remarried” is not limited to widows who have actually remarried but also applies to widows who are living as common-law wives, should not be reversed.

The parties’ arguments

10.          The petitioners argue that this Court must intervene in the National Labour Court’s judgments in the Boaron and Gabay Galoni cases, in view of a substantive legal error made in reaching them. Specifically, the petitioners argue that the National Labour Court’s judgments are inconsistent with the express language of ss. 135, 255(b), (d) and 262 of the National Insurance Law, which relate to a widow who has “remarried”, and that the language does not support an interpretation according to which these provisions relate to widows who are living as common-law wives — women who, by definition, have not remarried but are instead living with a partner. The petitioners argue in this context that the objective that the National Labour Court attributed to ss. 135, 255(b), (d) and 262 of the National Insurance Law — the creation of an equivalence not only in terms of the rights enjoyed by married couples as compared to the rights of couples living together, but also in terms of the obligations that both types of couple bear — deviates from the various possible linguistic interpretations of the section. They emphasize that the provisions establish specific dates on which the widow’s right to a dependents or survivors allowance either expires or is renewed. The petitioners note that the National Insurance Law refers to the concept of common-law marriage, and from this they infer that the legislature chose to apply ss. 135, 255(b), (d) and 262 to widows who have been formally remarried. The petitioners are of the opinion that the National Labour Court’s interpretation of the terms “married” and “date of marriage” will have “sweeping ramifications — without there having been a systemic, comprehensive, in-depth and methodical examination” of the other pieces of legislation dealing with marriage, and that such an examination can and should be carried out by the legislature alone.

As to the purpose of the National Insurance Law, the petitioners argue that it was intended to ensure the social security of Israel’s citizens, and that the level of social security enjoyed by common-law wives is less than that of married women due to the absence of a substantive financial anchor and to the unwillingness of the parties to make a commitment to each other through marriage. On this matter, the petitioners further argue that the ties between individuals who live as common-law spouses are characterized by varying levels of stability, and that clear criteria are therefore required in order to determine when the allowance given to a widow who has become another man’s common-law wife will be discontinued. The petitioners also argue that while the criteria for determining who falls within the definition of a common-law wife for the purpose of granting rights should be lenient, the criteria for making the same determination for the purpose of denying rights should be strict.

The petitioners argue that the National Labour Court has cancelled a right that is granted to a widow by primary legislation, and that in light of the complexity of the subject and its public importance, such a cancellation of rights should be left in the hands of the legislature. They further argue that the National Labour Court’s interpretation of the term “a widow who has remarried” violates the principle of equality with regard to the treatment of widows under the Families of Soldiers Killed in Action Law. In this context, they argue for the rejection of the NII’s position that a justifiable distinction may be made between the two groups of widows. The petitioners argue that the circumstances of a husband’s death are irrelevant, and that the purpose of both laws is to ensure that a widow who has been left without an additional provider can support herself with dignity. The petitioners also argue that the denial of their rights to an allowance due to their having become common-law wives violates their basic property rights; they argue that a statute which deprives citizens of their rights, or which reduces such rights, must be construed literally.

The petitioners further argue that the application of the provisions of ss. 135, 255(b), (d) and 262 of the National Insurance Law to widows who are living as common-law wives involves a degree of arbitrariness in terms of the determination of the date as of which the widow loses her entitlement to an allowance. Finally, the petitioners argue that the widowers have relied on their monthly allowances from the NII for their support and that their partners do not provide them with financial assistance, and do not support them — nor are they obligated to do so.

11.          The NII argues that the National Labour Court was correct in holding that the term a “widow who has remarried” also includes widows who are living as common-law wives, and that the position that the term “married” relates only to women who have had an actual wedding and not to common-law wives was already been rejected in Ornan v. NII [31]. The NII further argues, in this context, that because the term “wife” is defined in s. 1 of the National Insurance Law as including “his common-law wife who lives with him,” the term wife “who has married” applies as well to a woman who has connected her life to a partner as a common-law wife, even if she has not married her partner. According to the NII, a woman who is officially married has no advantage over the woman who is living as a common-law wife, and it is not reasonable that a widow who is the common-law wife of another man should have an advantage over a person who has officially married another person. Regarding this matter, the NII stresses that both a widow who has officially remarried and a widow who is a common-law wife would be entitled to an allowance by virtue of the second “spouse”, if that “spouse” should also pass away.

The NII also argues that the objective of the National Insurance Law is to assist a family unit when it has lost one of the heads of the household who had contributed to its economic maintenance. In accordance with this objective, when the surviving spouse establishes a new relationship, the need for this continued public support becomes irrelevant. The NII therefore believes that the language of the National Insurance Law, its objective, and its structure, as well as the quest for legislative harmony, do not justify any distinction between a widow who has remarried and a widow who is living as a common-law wife. On the contrary: according to the NII, allowing the appeal would mean unfair discrimination between the treatment of two groups of widows when there is no relevant difference between them with regard to entitlement to an allowance. The NII argues for the rejection of the petitioners’ argument that the National Labour Court’s interpretation establishes a primary legislative arrangement and an ultra vires act; it stresses that a court does have the authority to interpret acts of legislation — noting that this Court has in the past recognized the rights of common-law wives who had not been expressly included in relevant legislation. The NII also argues that identical terms appearing in different statutes are to be interpreted in accordance with each statute’s objective, and that the petitioners’ argument — that the National Labour Court’s interpretation will have sweeping consequences, even though there has not been any in-depth or methodical examination of the interpretation’s effect on other pieces of legislation dealing with marriage — should not be accepted.

Regarding the dates prescribed in the provisions of ss. 135, 255(b), (d) and 262 of the National Insurance Law, the NII argues that even if it is difficult to identify the “correct” date, this does not change the legal interpretation regarding the substantive right, and that insofar as implementation of the provisions is the issue, such implementation is a matter for the competent authorities, to be determined on the basis of appropriate proof, and these determinations will be subject to judicial review by the Regional Labour Court.

The NII argues that the proper interpretation of the term a “widow who has remarried” should not be inferred from the rules that apply to widows under the Families of Soldiers Killed in Action Law, due to the different frameworks and to the relevant difference between these two groups of widows. The NII further argues that the petitioners could also seek an amendment of the law (as was done in the case of the Families of Soldiers Killed in Action Law). The NII thus argues that there is no violation of the principle of equality here, and it further argues that the constitutional right to property does not apply to pension rights under the National Insurance Law. Finally, the NII contends that the petitioners’ argument concerning their reliance on their allowances should not be accepted, and that in any event this reliance neither adds nor detracts from the need to decide on the very existence of the right to an allowance. In this context, the NII also argues that neither the survivors allowance nor the dependents allowance is intended to secure basic living conditions: that objective is achieved through the income support allowance.

Deliberation

12.          This Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, acts with considerable restraint regarding any intervention in the decisions of the National Labour Court (see HCJ 6522/06 Kochavi v. Jerusalem Labour Court [1], at para. 17; HCJ 8929/08 Ben Nun v. National Labour Court [2], at para. 18) and it will intervene in that court’s judgment only in those cases in which two conditions have been met, cumulatively: first, that the judgment is tainted by a substantive legal error; and second, that justice requires its correction. In examining the existence of a “substantive legal error”, this Court will consider whether, inter alia, the subject under discussion is of public importance and to what extent it is a general and widespread issue (see HCJ 525/84 Hatib v. National Labour Court [3], at pp. 693-694; HCJ 840/03 Israel Professional Firefighters Union — Firefighters Committee v. National Labour Court [4], at pp. 814-815; HCJ 5666/03 Kav LaOved Organization v. National Labour Court [5], at para. 28). There is no dispute that the subject before us is an important one. Nevertheless, I will already state that in my view, the National Labour Court’s decisions in the present matter are not tainted by any substantive legal error that would justify our intervention.

13. Section 135 of the National Insurance Law, relating to dependents allowances, and ss. 255(b), (d) and 262 of that Law, relating to survivors allowances, stands at the heart of the discussion and it is therefore appropriate to cite them in full.

Section 135 of the National Insurance Law refers to a widow who receives a dependents allowance pursuant to Chapter E, which deals with work accident victim insurance. It provides as follows:

135. A widow who has remarried

(a)          If a widow remarries, her right to an allowance expires and the Institute will pay her a grant in two installments as follows:

(1) After the date of her remarriage — an amount equal to the dependents allowance, which is calculated on the basis of the amount of the allowance as stated in s. 132(1) (hereinafter: “the allowance amount”) that was paid for the month in which she remarried, multiplied by eighteen;

(2) At the end of two years from the date of her remarriage — an amount equal to the allowance amount as it would have been paid to her, had she not remarried, for the last month of the said two years, multiplied by eighteen;

However, if she is no longer married ten years after the date on which she remarried, or if, within this period, divorce proceedings between her and her spouse have been initiated in a religious or a civil court, she will again be entitled to an allowance beginning on the date she ceased to be married, as stated, and a grant or a first installment thereof, which was paid to her pursuant to this sub-section, will be credited against the allowance, according to the provisions of paras. (1) – (4) of s. 262(a).

(b) If a widow’s husband from her new marriage passes away and she receives a dependents allowance or a survivors allowance because of him, she will receive the second installment of the grant, even if less than two years have passed from the date of her remarriage; the grant will be calculated on the basis of the allowance amount that would have been paid to her for the month in which her husband passed away as stated, had she not remarried.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (a), the Minister may prescribe certain conditions and situations in which the right of a widow who has remarried to receive an allowance will not expire.

Section 130(b)(1) of the National Insurance Law provides that the provisions that apply to a widow regarding these matters will also apply to a widower.

Sections 255(b), (d) and 262 of the National Insurance Law refer to a widow who receives a survivor’s allowance pursuant to Chapter K, dealing with Old Age Insurance and Survivors Insurance, and they provide as follows:

255. Payment of a grant

. . .

(b)          If a widow who is entitled to a survivors allowance remarries, her right to the survivors allowance will expire and the Institute will pay her a grant in two installments as follows:

(1) After the date of her remarriage — an amount equal to the survivors allowance which is calculated on the basis of the amount of the allowance as described in s. 252(a)(1) (hereinafter: “the allowance amount”) which had been paid for the month in which she had remarried, multiplied by eighteen;

(2) At the end of two years from the date of her remarriage — an amount equal to the allowance amount as it would have been paid to her, had she not remarried, for the last month of the said two years, multiplied by eighteen;

(c) If a widow’s husband from her new marriage passes away and she receives a survivors allowance or a dependents allowance because of him, she will receive the second installment of the grant, even if less than two years have passed from the date of her remarriage; the grant will be calculated on the basis of the allowance amount that would have been paid to her for the month in which her husband passed away as stated.

(d) A widower, for the purpose of this section, will be treated in the same manner as a widow.

262. A widow or widow who has remarried

(b)          A widow who is entitled to a grant pursuant to this Part due to her marriage will lose her entitlement to an allowance; however, if she is no longer married ten years after the date on which she remarried, or if, within this period, divorce proceedings between her and her spouse have been initiated in a religious or a civil court, she will again be entitled to an allowance beginning on the date she ceased to be married, as stated, and a grant or a first installment thereof, which was paid to her pursuant to this sub-section will be credited against the allowance, subject to the following provisions:

(1)          If the widow’s entitlement to an allowance is renewed within 18 months from the date on which her entitlement to an allowance expired pursuant to her marriage, the amount to be credited against her allowance will be one eighteenth of the first installment, multiplied by the number of months for which she is entitled to an allowance during the said eighteen months;

(2)          If the widow’s entitlement to an allowance is renewed later than 18 months from the date on which her entitlement to an allowance expired pursuant to her marriage, the first installment of the grant will not be credited against her allowance;

(3)          If the widow’s entitlement to an allowance is renewed later than two years and earlier than three years after the date on which her entitlement to an allowance expired pursuant to her marriage, the amount to be credited against her allowance will be one eighteenth of the second installment, multiplied by the number of months for which she is entitled to an allowance during the last eighteen months of the said three years;

(4)          If the widow’s entitlement to an allowance is renewed later than three years after the date on which her entitlement to an allowance expired pursuant to her marriage, the second installment of the grant will not be credited against her allowance;

(b)          Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (a), the Minister may specify certain situations and conditions in which the right of a widow who has remarried to receive an allowance will not expire.

(c)           The provisions of this section will apply to a widower as well, mutatis mutandis.

14.          The question we face is, as stated, whether the provisions of ss. 135, 255(b) – (d) and 262 of the National Insurance Law are also properly applied to a widow or widower who subsequent to being widowed has become the common-law wife or husband of another partner.

The starting point of any process of statutory interpretation is the statutory language, and that language will set the limits of the interpretation, in the sense that the words of the statute may not be given a meaning that they cannot support (see MApp 67/84 Hadad v. Paz [6], at p. 670; CA 2000/97 Lindorn v. Kranit Fund for Compensation of Road Accident Victims [7], at p. 25; CA 8569/06 Director of Land Taxation, Haifa Office v. Polity [8], at para. 26). This Court has therefore held on several occasions that “the language component is not a sufficient condition for a particular interpretation, but it is a necessary condition” (CA 3622/96 Hacham v. Kupat Holim “Maccabi” [9], at pp. 646-647) and that “the judge may not  . . . realize an objective unless it has some basis — even a weak one — in the statutory language” (FH 40/80 Koenig v. Cohen [10], at p. 715; see also LCA 3899/04 State of Israel v. Even Zohar [11], at para. 14; Director of Land Taxation v. Polity [8], at para. 26; A. Barak, Legal Interpretation (vol. 2, ‘Statutory Interpretation,’ 1993), at pp. 81-84, 97-100).

15.          Can the language in ss. 135, 255(b), (d) and 262 of the National Insurance Law support a legal interpretation that also applies these provisions to a widow or widower who is living as a common-law spouse?

In order to answer this question, we must examine, inter alia, the definitional section of the statute, which is designed to establish the scope of the linguistic significance of the terms that are the subject of each definition (see Director of Land Taxation v. Polity [8], at paras. 29-30; Barak, Legal Interpretation, supra, at pp. 137-138). The definitional section of the National Insurance Law (s. 1) provides as follows: “‘his wife’ — including his common-law wife who lives with him.” The term “including” generally expands the scope of the literal meaning that may be attributed to the defined term (see Barak, Legal Interpretation, supra, at p. 138) and in Ornan v. NII [31], the National Labour Court, in reliance, inter alia, on the definitional section, held  that the term “a married woman” also includes a common-law wife. In that case, the National Labour Court rejected the NII’s argument (the opposite argument to the argument it makes here) that the term “married woman” means only an officially married woman, and held that the term “his wife” in the definitional section “means a ‘married woman’, because were this not the case, why would it have been necessary for the legislature to add at the end, ‘including his common-law wife’?” (Ibid., [31], at p. 407.) The National Labour Court also noted in that case that “there is nothing in that section [which was the subject of the dispute there], either in its substance or in its context, that contradicts the definition of the term ‘his wife’ in s. 1 of the statute, and that the rule applying to a ‘married woman’ [in that section] is the same as that applying to ‘his wife’ in s. 1 of the statute” (ibid., [31], at p. 408). This holding was reached in light of the provision in s. 2 of the Interpretation Law, 5741-1981, under which “a term that is defined in legislation will have the meaning assigned to it by the definition . .  . unless otherwise stated with regard to the particular matter, and provided that nothing in the subject-matter or context is inconsistent with the definition.”

16.          We accept the position that the term “married woman” can, in linguistic terms, support a legal meaning that includes “a woman living as a common-law wife.” But the petitioners claim that the language in the sections under discussion in this case — unlike the section which was the subject of Ornan v. NII [31] — indicates only a narrow range for possible interpretation, one which does not include a widow who is a common-law wife. This is because the provisions of ss. 135, 255(b), (d) and 262 of the National Insurance Law relate to defined dates that are, in their view, relevant only to widows who have remarried officially, particularly the date on which the widow remarried and the date as of which she was no longer remarried.

I cannot accept the petitioners’ argument in this matter.

Indeed, the assumption is that “the legislature is using regular language and the language cannot be interpreted other than according to its plain meaning” (HCJ 6247/04 Gorodetzki v. Minister of Interior [12]); occasionally, however, and to the extent justified by the objective that the statute is intended to achieve, the interpreter may attribute  a unique and unusual meaning to particular words, if that meaning falls within the linguistic range delineated by the statutory language (see Barak, Legal Interpretation, supra, at pp. 117-118). In this case, and as I will describe below, it appears to me that from a linguistic perspective, the dates specified in ss. 135, 255(b), (d) and 262 of the National Insurance Law (the date on which a widow remarried or the date as of which she was no longer married) can be interpreted in a manner that applies them also to the dates on which a widow began or ceased to be a common-law wife, whichever is relevant. Indeed, while it is a simple matter to identify the establishment of a marital connection by virtue of a formal and constitutive act, the identification of a date on which a couple began to live together as common-law spouses or the date on which a couple ceased to live as such is less clear-cut, and requires a factual examination of the nature and circumstances of the relationship. In my view, however, this fact does not rule out an interpretation that applies the provisions to which the petitions before us relate to common-law spouses as well, in view of the standard criteria for determining these matters, according to which a couple will be recognized as common-law spouses if they have a conjugal relationship and a shared household (see AAA 4614/05 State of Israel v. Oren [13]; CA 1966/07 Ariel v. Egged Members Pension Fund Ltd. [14], at para. 25). Similar tests are applied by the NII with regard to the granting of allowances (see, for example, NIIApp 731/07 Kirshner v. NII [33]), and there is nothing to prevent their application where required with respect to the expiration of the right to an allowance. In any event, a party who believes that he or she has been harmed by a decision of the NII regarding this matter is free to initiate the appeal procedures prescribed by law (see and compare: HCJ 2316/05 A v. National Labour Court [15]; NIIApp1212/04 Apter v. NII [34], at p. 469).

Since my conclusion is that the language of the relevant statutory sections does not negate any of the interpretations that the parties wish to give to the provisions of ss. 135, 255(b), (d) and 262 of the National Insurance Law, we must now proceed to determine what is the objective that underlies the legislation that we are required to interpret.

17.          The objective of the National Insurance Law with respect to survivors allowances and work accident victim insurance is “to protect against economic shortages that are liable to follow the curtailing of income as a result of a provider’s work accident, old age or death. Its purpose is not to grant rights to a person by reason of his being the relative of another person, but rather, to prevent a defined group of persons from suffering from financial shortages because they are no longer receiving their own income or the income of their provider” (NLC 30/19-0 NII v. Mano [35], at p. 77; see also: NLC 52/69-0        Leon v. NII [36], at p. 464; NLC 53/6-7 Batar v. Central Pension Fund of Histradrut Workers, Ltd [37], at p. 140; NLC 57/6-2 Central Pension Fund of Histradrut Workers, Ltd v. Kochavi [38], at para. 6; see and compare HCJ 4193/04 Gartner-Goldschmidt v. National Labour Court [16]).Thus, the survivors and dependents allowances that are paid pursuant to the National Insurance Law are intended to compensate for the loss of financial support that a person had been receiving from his or her partner as a dependent of that partner in connection with such support, and to preserve a roughly similar standard of living to that which the survivor enjoyed prior to the provider’s death (see Gorodetzki v. Minister of Interior [12], at para. 23; NIIApp 1169/01 Avital v. NII [39]; Kirshner v. NII [33], at para. 8(e)).

In light of these objectives, the right of a widow or widower to an allowance expires upon remarriage, according to the provisions of ss. 135, 255(b), (d) and 262 of the National Insurance Law. This is due to the assumption that the new familial unit that has been established will be sufficient to replace the loss of income that ensued from the death of the previous partner (see NIIApp 779/06 NII v. Wolkowitz [40], per President S. Adler, at para. 3). At the same time, and in order to enable a widow or widower to adapt to the expiration of the right to an allowance pursuant to the above-mentioned sections, the statute provides that they will be entitled to a grant which is equal to thirty-six months of the allowance. (The two installments of the grant are paid within a period of two years from the date of the remarriage.) The Minister of Labour and Welfare is also authorized, by virtue of ss. 135(c), and 262(d) of the National Insurance Law, to prescribe certain circumstances and conditions under which the right of a remarried widower or widow to an allowance will not expire. The regulations that the Minister enacted pursuant to this authorization (see National Insurance Regulations (Dependents Allowance for Remarried Widows), 5737-1976) provide that a remarried widow’s right to a dependents allowance will not expire if the new husband is unable to support himself or if he is over 60 years old, provided that the new husband’s income does not exceed one twelfth of the amount specified in Item 1 of Table B of the National Insurance Law. Similar regulations have not been enacted with respect to a survivors allowance.

The objective of the provisions that cancel the right to an allowance in the event of an official remarriage, and the above-mentioned rationales which underlie that objective, are also applicable with respect to a widow or widower who has begun to live with a new partner in a common-law marriage. Indeed, a widow or widower who lives as a common-law spouse will benefit from shared income with the new partner and from a shared bearing of expenses — assuming that there is a shared household, which is a condition for the couple being classified as common-law spouses. Under these circumstances, there is no justification for the widow or widower to continue to receive a survivors allowance or a dependents allowance; such allowances are intended to provide protection from the financial shortage that the death of a provider is expected to entail.

18.          Together with the search for the specific objective of the legislation that we wish to interpret, we ought to examine the extent to which the legislation expresses the basic values of the legal system, in light of the accepted principle that these values must find expression in every piece of legislation. One of the basic values of the legal system in Israel, relating directly to the matter under discussion here, is the principle of equality, a value which has been accorded constitutional status (see HCJ 953/87 Poraz v. Mayor of Tel Aviv Shlomo Lahat [17], at pp. 329-332; Lindorn v. Kranit Fund [7], at pp. 29-30; HCJ 6427/02 Movement for Quality Government v. The Knesset [18], (per President Barak, at paras. 36-40); HCJ 4124/00 Yekutieli v. Minister of Religion [19], at para. 35). The significance of this is that when there is no relevant difference between individuals, they are entitled to equal treatment, inter alia in terms of the legal rules that apply to them. A claim of discrimination can therefore arise when a different legal rule is applied to individuals or groups between whom there is no relevant difference (see HCJFH 4191/97 Recanat v. National Labour Court [20], at pp. 343-345). The complexity involved in the implementation of the principle of equality was noted by President Beinisch in Yekutieli v. Minister of Religion [19] as follows:

‘It is not a simple matter to determine whether a particular norm violates the principle of equality. By its very nature, the question calls for a discussion of the characteristics and purposes of the norm, and a determination of the “peer group” relevant to the matter at hand. The peer group is the group of individuals or entities to which the obligation to act in accordance with the principle of equality applies . . . and it is derived, inter alia, from the norm’s purpose and from the scope of its application. Sometimes the legislature determines the peer group as a part of the norm itself, and sometimes the court must define, by means of a number of variables, what the peer group is in each specific case’ (ibid., at para. 36).

Here, the petitioners and the NII do not dispute the fact that there is a difference between the group comprising widows who have remarried by virtue of a wedding ceremony which is recognized by law, and the group comprising widows who are living as common-law wives. The parties’ disagreement relates to the matter of whether, for the purposes of ss. 135, 255(b), (d) and 262 of the National Insurance Law, the difference between these groups is a relevant one. The NII argues that an interpretation of the above-mentioned sections which excludes widowers and widows who are living as common-law spouses from coverage by those sections will create a situation whereby two groups between whom there is no relevant difference are treated differently. This argument, which the National Labour Court accepted, is a strong one, and I also believe that there is no relevant difference between the widowers and widows who have been officially remarried and those who are living as common-law spouses — no difference that justifies the application of a different legal rule to the two groups with regard to the expiration of the right to an allowance. Indeed, the members of both of these groups lost a source of income when their partners passed away, and the members of both groups have established new family units, and in relation to both groups, there is a presumption that the new partners share income and expenses. The petitioners argue in this regard that the relationship between partners who are living in a common-law marriage is less stable than the relationship between partners who were married officially, and that this creates a relevant distinction that justifies different treatment with regard to the expiration of the right to an allowance. This argument cannot be accepted, for even if we presume — in concert with the petitioners — that the relationship between partners who are living in a common-law marriage is indeed less stable than the relationship between partners who are officially married, this does not create a relevant distinction between the two groups with respect to the present matter. This is because the arrangement prescribed in ss. 135, 255(b), (d) and 262 of the National Insurance Law, which cancels the right to an allowance, also foresees the possibility that the new relationship will not last, and ss. 135(b)(2) and 262(a) of the statute therefore include a provision that a widow who remarries will regain her entitlement to an allowance —

‘ . . . if she is no longer married ten years after the date on which she was remarried, or if, within this period, divorce proceedings between her and her spouse have been initiated  . . .’

It is understood, however, that if the provision that cancels the right to an allowance also applies to widows or widowers who are living as common-law spouses, the provision that re-entitles them to an allowance if the new common-law relationship ceases to exist before ten years have elapsed since its inception will also apply to them. Thus, the alleged distinction based on the difference in the level of the stability of the relationship is also insufficient to justify the application of a different legal rule to the petitioners as widows who are now living as common-law wives, on the one hand, and to widows who have been officially remarried, on the other hand.

19. In Ornan v. National Insurance Institute [31], the National Labour Court, in a different context pertaining to the National Insurance Law, noted the implications of a discriminatory rule that involves an improper favoring of common-law wives, stating as follows:

‘We should not attribute to the legislature an intention to grant the common-law wife only benefits, and to spare her the disadvantages. The aim of the Law is to create an equivalence for all purposes — with respect to both the good and the bad — between the common-law wife and the married woman’ (ibid., at p. 408).

I find this approach to be acceptable, and it provides an appropriate response to the contention that the provisions of the National Insurance Law can be extended through interpretation when they grant benefits, but cannot be extended when the extension involves a negation of rights. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that for the purpose of granting a survivors allowance (pursuant to s. 252 of the Law) and a dependents allowance (pursuant to s. 131 of the Law), a common-law wife will be considered a “widow” due to having been the “wife” (under the definition in s. 1 of the Law) of her deceased partner (see: NLC 56/255-0 Atar v. NII [41], at p. 387; Kirshner v. NII [33], at para. 8(a)), but that she will not be considered to be the “wife” of her new partner with whom she is living as a common-law spouse with regard to the expiration of the entitlement to these rights (pursuant to ss. 135, 255(b) and (d) of the Law).

It appears to me that the same question arises regarding both the granting of rights and their expiration, i.e., whether there is a relevant distinction, with respect to either issue, between couples who are officially married and couples who are living together in a common-law marriage (see and compare 4341/99 CrimA Vidal v. State of Israel [21],                 at p. 334; CA 2622/01 Director of Land Appreciation Tax v. Levanon [22], at p. 326).

Professor Shahar Lifshitz’ comments are also pertinent here:

‘When, as the result of the attempt to equate the support given to the institution of common-law marriages and the institution of official marriage, a situation is created that favors the common-law partners, the result is untenable . . . in light of the proclivity to equate the rights of common-law spouses to those of married people, a parallel reform is required that will equate the duties imposed in the two cases . . . ’ (S. Lifshitz, Common-Law Partners From the Perspective of the Civil Theory of Family Law (2005), at pp. 235-236).

The degree to which different treatment of widows and widowers in common-law marriages (as compared to the treatment of widows and widowers who have officially remarried) is liable to create a discriminatory and even absurd situation regarding the expiration of entitlement to survivors allowances or for dependents allowances, was demonstrated in the National Labour Court’s decision, when it noted the following among the reasons for its ruling:

‘The absurdity with respect to the non-expiration of the entitlement to a dependents allowance of a widow who has established a new home with her common-law husband is exacerbated in the case in which her common-law husband dies as a result of a work accident. In such a case, according to my colleague the Vice President (in Friman), the widow will in theory be entitled, simultaneously, to two dependents allowances: one arising from the death of her official husband and one arising from the death of her common-law husband.’

This discriminatory result does indeed reach the level of absurdity and it must be avoided, not only because of the harm done to the principle of equality but also because of the rule that requires us to avoid, to the extent possible, an interpretation of statutory provisions that leads to an absurd result (see and compare, CA 165/82 Kibbutz Hatzor v. Rehovot Tax Assessor [23], at p. 74; CA 1186/93 State of Israel, Minister of Justice v. Israel Discount Bank Ltd [24], at p. 361; Barak, Legal Interpretation, supra, at pp. 280-283).

In light of the above, I believe that with respect to the expiration of entitlement to a survivors or a dependents allowance pursuant to ss. 135, 255(b), (d) or 255(b), (d) and 262 of the National Insurance Law, the widows who are living as common-law wives should be subject to the same rule as widows who have been officially remarried, as the purpose of the legislation justifies this interpretation, and as it is also an interpretation that the statutory language will support.

20.          We must still consider the petitioners’ argument that the adoption of the National Labour Court’s interpretation of the provisions of ss. 135, 255(b), (d) and 262 of the National Insurance Law, i.e., that rights to allowances will expire for widows who are living with their partners as common-law wives, unfairly discriminates against them, as compared to widows who live as common-law wives and who are entitled to pensions pursuant to the Families of Soldiers Killed in Action Law. This argument must also be rejected. First, Amendment 30 of the Families of Soldiers Killed in Action Law changed that Law’s definition of a widow to “a person who was the wife of the decedent at the time of his death, including a woman who prior to the decedent’s death was living with him and who, on the date of his death, was his common-law wife — even if she has married another person” (emphasis added), and s. 12A of that Law, whereby the widow of a decedent who remarried lost her entitlement to a pension pursuant to the Law, was cancelled  (see the Families of Soldiers Killed in Action Law (Amendment 30), 5770-3009, SH 252). In enacting these measures, the legislature demonstrated that with respect to the widows of soldiers who were killed in action, the intention was to continue the payment of a pension even after they remarried, and, in any event, if they were living as the common-law wives of other men. Second, it has been held several times that in enacting a series of laws relating to those who were wounded or who sacrificed their lives for the country, or to their families, the legislature wished to give expression to the moral obligation owed by the state, and that these laws should therefore not be viewed as intended only to provide social security, as the National Insurance Law does. This explains the difference that appears in some contexts between the language in the National Insurance Law and the language in these other laws (see: HCJ 5304/02 Israel Association of Victims of Work Accidents and Widows of Victims of Work Accidents v. State of Israel, Knesset [25], at pp. 141-142; HCJ 8487/03 IDF Disabled Veterans Organization v. Minister of Defense [26], at paras. 21-23; HCJ 9863/06 Karan - Society of Combat Veteran Quadriplegics v. State of Israel - Minister of Health [27], at paras. 11-14).

For all the reasons mentioned above, I propose to my colleagues that the petitions be denied without any order regarding costs.

 

Justice E. E. Levy

I concur.

 

President D. Beinisch

I concur in the decision of my colleague, Justice E. Hayut, and I also agree with her reasoning. Indeed, Israeli legislation and case law have recognized the status of the common-law spouse; this has certainly been the case with respect to social support and rights (see, among others, the Inheritance Law, 5725-1965; Names Law, 5716-1956; Families of Soldiers Killed in Action Law. And see, for example HCJ 693/91 Efrat v. Director of the Population Registry [28]; Lindorn v. Kranit Fund [7]; Director of Land Appreciation Taxation v. Levanon [22]). The professional literature, it is true, contains various views relating to the possibility of applying to common-law couples arrangements that are similar to those applying to married couples. For example, the argument is made that the various arrangements that apply to married couples should not be applied equally to couples living together in common-law relationships, so as not to frustrate the wishes of those who have chosen, knowingly, to refrain from entering into official marriages (see, for example, the arguments made in S. Lifshitz, Common-Law Partners, supra, at pp. 199-216). In any event, this question does not arise in the case before us, since it appears to me that even those who believe that only some of the arrangements that apply to married couples should be applied to common-law couples would agree that the arrangements arising out of social legislation should be applied to common-law couples as well (see, for example, the distinction drawn by Lifshitz between “responsive” rules and “directed” rules, supra, at p. 217).

Although the concept of common-law relationships is not a new one in our system, not all the relevant legislative arrangements have been adjusted to the changes that have occurred in modern times in the structure of the family unit. With respect to certain laws, the legislature has not responded to this issue at all (see, for example, Director of Land Appreciation Taxation v. Levanon [22], per Justice Strassberg-Cohen, at pp. 315-316:  “The laws in relation to which the question arises as to whether or not they grant rights to a common-law wife do not have uniform language. Some of them make express use of the term ‘common-law wife’or a similar term, while defining that term clearly and explicitly. Some of them . . . use the term ‘partner’ without defining it”). In the absence of any express reference by the legislature to the application of a law to common-law partners, there are courts which, in interpreting the relevant legislation, have applied various provisions and arrangements to common-law partners as well. This was the case, for example, in Lindorn v. Kranit Fund [7], in which the court held that for the purpose of paying compensation to dependents pursuant to the Civil Wrongs Ordinance [New Version], 5728-1968, both the linguistic and the legal meanings of the phrase “partner” includes, necessarily, the concept of common-law partners.

Regarding the petition before us, as elucidated in my colleague’s opinion, s. 1 of the National Insurance Law — the definitional section — provides that the term “his wife” will “include his common-law wife who lives with him.” The definitional section applies to the entire statute, and it therefore indicates that the legislature saw the relationship between common-law partners as a framework that is covered by the statute. Furthermore, common-law wives who become widowed are not denied survivors allowances or dependents allowances — the allowances which are the focus of the discussion in this petition — and common-law wives are therefore entitled to such allowances, as are married women who have been widowed. In other words, while the situation of married women and common-law wives are completely identical with regard to entitlement to survivors allowances and dependents allowances if such married women or common-law wives should unfortunately be widowed, the same exact pension would later be cancelled only for those women who have chosen to remarry through an official marriage. This result is especially problematic, as my colleague has noted, in situations in which the widow who becomes a common-law wife is widowed again when her common-law husband passes away. In such a situation, she would be entitled to the original allowance and to another allowance by virtue of the common-law husband. The absence of symmetry between the recognition of an affirmative right and the denial of that right creates, as stated, a distortion which is likely to lead to absurd results.

I therefore agree with the conclusion reached by my colleague, Justice Hayut, that the interpretation of ss. 135, 255 and 262 of the Law necessitates the denial of the allowance to widows who acquire common-law partners, in the same way that the allowance would be denied to widows who have remarried. First, I too believe that the statutory language can support this meaning, especially given the definition of the term “his wife” in the definitional section. As is known, “the main purpose of the definitions is to establish the scope of the (express or implied) meaning of the text of the terms” (Barak, Legal Interpretation, supra, at p. 138). Additionally, the linguistic context of a piece of legislation is interpreted in relation to the statute as a complete unit, which helps determine the legal meaning of a term or section within the statute (ibid., pp. 106-107). Here, the complete unit of the National Insurance Law, in its entirety, indicates that the legislature intended to include common-law partners within the statute’s coverage, and to apply to them all the relevant rights and obligations. Secondly, this conclusion is also supported by a purposive interpretation of the Law, the purpose of which is to provide compensation for the loss of the economic support that a person received from a partner in the past, as long as the person being compensated is not in a new relationship through which such support has been renewed.

I am aware that the practical meaning of this interpretation, in the petition before us, is that the petitioners will lose their entitlement to an allowance; and that when an interpretation leads to a denial of rights, we generally lean towards construing the relevant language narrowly and literally. However, in the case before us, even though according to a purposive interpretation, as my colleague Justice Hayut noted, the widows who have common-law husbands will lose their survivors allowances or dependents allowances, this result is consistent with the purpose of the legislation and promotes the basic right of equality, in a situation in which there is no reason for making a distinction between the two groups. Regarding this matter, I accept that the petitioners have not presented persuasive reasons for recognizing a distinction between them and widows who have remarried. Even if the argument that there is a difference between these groups due to the lack of obligation and stability in the common-law relationships were to be accepted — and I am not persuaded that by itself this is a well-founded argument — it would still be insufficient to justify a different interpretation than that being proposed, since in any event, the provisions of the National Insurance Law foresee the possibility that the relationship between the partners, in either an official or common-law marriage, may come to an end, and the Law provides a solution in the form of a renewal of the allowance. The same applies to the petitioners’ contention with respect to the determination of the date on which the relationship with the common-law partner is to be recognized (and thus, the date on which the allowance is terminated). In actuality, the NII is accustomed to determining such dates for various purposes listed in the National Insurance Law. Therefore, just as it is possible to establish the date on which a relationship begins for the purpose of recognizing rights, it is also possible to determine the date on which the entitlement to an allowance will come to an end.

I also agree with the position that a distinction should be drawn between the right of an IDF widow to receive a survivors allowance, on the one hand, and the rights of other injured parties to whom the legislature wished to provide social security, on the other hand. The distinction, which is anchored in primary legislation, results from the different objectives of the support provided to the different categories of injured parties. This is in no way an expression of a desire to harm injured parties who have experienced general misfortune; the intention is only to recognize the special status of those to whom the state and Israeli society owe a special moral debt. The degree to which a distinction is to be drawn and the expression given to that distinction is a matter to be determined by the legislature.

Needless to say, even though the interpretation of the National Insurance Law does lead to a conclusion that survivors allowances and dependents allowances should be eliminated for widows who have common-law husbands, it may be that the legislature should make express provision  for this in the National Insurance Law, as it has done with respect to other pieces of legislation (see, for example, the amendment to the definition of “spouse” in the Income Support Law, 5741-1980, in which it was established that the term “spouses” will “include a man and women who are a common-law couple and who live together.” The practical significance of the amendment is that common-law partners are not considered to be “singles”, entitled to the allowance paid to singles). It is further noted that we do not, in our decision, take a position regarding the appropriate interpretation with respect to other arrangements established in statutes that are not the subject of this judgment.

This interpretation conforms to the need to recognize the changes that are taking place regarding the family unit model, and displays a willingness to adjust the legal arrangements applying to traditional families to other family structures as well, subject to the changes necessitated by the differences in the relationships among these alternative family structures. Naturally, a just and egalitarian application of these arrangements requires that there be symmetry between rights and obligations, in a manner that fully realizes the purpose of the legislation. Therefore, I too see no grounds, everything considered, for intervening in the decision of the National Labour Court, and in my opinion the petitions should be denied.

 

 

Vice President E. Rivlin

I concur in the decision of my colleague Justice E. Hayut, and in the comments of my colleague President D. Beinisch.

 

 

Justice A. Proccacia

I agree with the decision of my colleague Justice E. Hayut, including with her reasoning and with her conclusions. I also agree with the additional comments made by my colleague, President Beinisch.

Social security in Israel, as reflected in the National Insurance Law, is founded on the concept of solidarity and mutual assistance. The funding for this comes from the payment of mandatory National Insurance contributions, which are collected according to the economic means of those insured, and from government funds; payments from the NII, on the other hand, are intended to provide basic-level assistance to those in need, necessary for life with dignity (see HCJ 6304/09 Lahav v. Attorney General [29], at paras. 42-59). The NII’s resources are, by their nature, limited; the realization of its objectives, in terms of providing assistance for life with dignity for the needy members of society, therefore requires that maximum care be taken so that its resources are allocated only in a manner that serves the true objectives for which they have been designated. The realization of the main objective of the National Insurance therefore requires that a good look be taken at a person’s true needs and at true neediness, and that formats and frameworks that exist only as formalities should be avoided, because they do not necessarily reflect the actual reality. The National Insurance funds are to be directed only at the “have-nots” and not at the “haves”, regardless of the particular name given to the personal status of a particular “have”; and the idea of social security requires that assistance be given to a widow only as long as her actual personal situation has not changed, and only as long as she does not live in a relationship as part of a couple, through which she is able to receive support and security. Once she has returned to a life based on being part of a couple, whether in the framework of an official marriage or in the framework of a relationship known as “common-law marriage”, she is presumed to no longer require the support of the social security system. The allowance to which she was entitled in the past, when she lived by herself and faced the struggle for existence alone, should now be directed towards other social objectives reflecting a real need. The social conception underlying the National Insurance Law strives, therefore, to examine life as it really is, according to a criterion of actuality; it distances itself from formalistic frameworks that do not reflect the true situation. In order to promote the objective of providing social security, the statute, for the most part, avoids the official frameworks of marriage and divorce and examines  the true life of a couple, as it is conducted on a daily basis (compare to the similar purpose of the Public Service Law (Pensions) [Consolidated Version], 5730-1970, and in this context, HCJ 4193/04 Gartner-Goldschmidt v. National Labour Court [31], (per Justice Procaccia, at paras. 20-21)).

The interpretation given by my colleague Justice E. Hayut to the provisions of the National Insurance Law, looking at the reality of human life, as distinguished from an official format that defines personal status, is consistent with the language of the statute, and with its social purpose.

I would further comment that equating the rule applied to a widow who lives with a common-law partner to the rule applied to a widow who remarries, for the purpose of determining entitlement to a survivors allowance or a dependents allowance, may create substantial problems regarding enforcement. What is the test for recognizing the existence of “common-law relationship”; when and how will the competent authority become aware that this type of relationship has come into being; and how will the principle of equality in enforcement be maintained in this area? These questions have not been raised before us, but we can assume that the competent authority is aware of them and is prepared to deal with them.

 

Justice H. Melcer:

I agree with the comprehensive opinion of my colleague Justice E. Hayut, and with the comments of President D. Beinisch. Nevertheless, I wish to add three comments:

(a)          I accept the conclusion that a woman who has not remarried, but who does live with her partner as a common-law wife — is comparable to a widow who has remarried, with respect to the expiration of her entitlement to a survivors allowance or to a dependents allowance which is given to her by virtue of her deceased husband. The linguistic context and a purposive interpretation of the provisions of the National Insurance Law are sufficient to establish this.

Nevertheless, in order to reach the said result, I do not need to rely on the argument that were we to hold otherwise, a widow who became a common-law wife and is now widowed of her common-law husband could be entitled to both the original allowance and to an allowance by virtue of her deceased common-law partner, and that this result borders on the absurd. I do not need such an argument because the concept of a “common-law wife” does occasionally create, by its very nature, problematic situations that may in extreme cases lead to double payments, or to divided payments, or to other complicated solutions. This can happen, for example, if the widow’s common-law partner was married to another person at the time of his death — and I will not elaborate (see ss. 130 and 238 of the National Insurance Law; CA 233/98 Katz v. Keren Makefet [30]; Atar v. NII [41]; and finally, Ariel v. Egged Members Pension Fund Ltd [14]; Lifshitz, Common-Law Partners, supra, at pp. 267-268.)  

(b)          The change in status of a widow who has remarried is usually clear and unequivocal, determined entirely by the validity of the marriage. On the other hand, a change in status that occurs when a widow becomes the common-law wife of the man with whom she lives (as in the definition of s. 1 of the National Insurance Law) is not as unequivocal. It is comprised of two cumulative conditions (see Atar v. NII [41]), and a determination that such a change has taken place will depend on the facts and circumstances (see Ariel v. Egged Members Pension Fund Ltd [14]). It therefore appears to me that prior to terminating the entitlement to an allowance, the NII should grant the person whose said entitlement is to be cancelled a full right to argue against such cancellation, over and above what would in any event be such person’s right to appeal following the decision.

(c)           It would be best if regulations were enacted pursuant to s. 262(b) of the National Insurance Law, which would establish the types of cases and conditions in which the right of a widow who has remarried to receive a survivors allowance would not expire. I have not heard any clear explanation for the fact that no such regulations have been enacted to date, while similar regulations have been enacted pursuant to s. 135(c) of the National Insurance Law regarding the non-expiration of a remarried widow’s right to a dependents allowance in certain situations (see National Insurance Regulations (Dependents allowance for a Remarried Widow), 5737-1976).

 

Justice E. Arbel

I concur in the opinion of my colleague Justice E. Hayut. I agree with her that a widow who becomes a common-law wife should be treated as a widow who has remarried, as that term is properly interpreted in the context of ss. 135, 255(b) and (d) and 262 of the National Insurance Law.

Since such a widow has again established a family life with a life partner and is again living as part of a joint household, her entitlement to continued receipt of a dependents allowance should expire, as the purpose of the payment of the allowance is to secure the dignified support of a widow who has been left without an additional provider (subject to the exceptions listed in the opinion of Justice Hayut, at p. 17). Any different interpretation would create an improper disparity between the treatment of a widow who has officially remarried and the treatment of a widow who has established a family unit with a new partner but without a wedding ceremony. I agree that the legislature’s intent would be subverted if a distinction were to be drawn between the two groups, given that the status of a common-law partner is established in the definitional section of the Law, even though I do not ignore the fact that within this framework, common-law partners may have different levels of commitment. It is indeed reasonable to attribute to the legislature an intention to grant the common-law wife both the good and the bad — meaning that a common-law wife will enjoy the rights of a married woman, but that these rights will expire in the same way as they do for a married woman. I agree with those who argue that it would be preferable if the legislature enacted an express provision establishing the termination of these rights, but as long as the legislature has not responded to the matter, and for the reasons that my colleague has described, the proposed interpretation is to be preferred. I would also add that there can be no doubt regarding the obligation of the state to those who were injured or who sacrificed their lives for the state, or to their families, and that this justifies the distinction that is made with respect to these widows, as explained by my colleague.

 

Decided as per Justice E. Hayut.

 

11Tishrei 5771.

19 September 2010.

 

Basset v. Hapol Compulsory Insurance Ltd.

Case/docket number: 
CA 370/63
Date Decided: 
Sunday, March 15, 1964
Decision Type: 
Appellate
Abstract: 

The first appellant was involved in a traffic accident, for which he was partly responsible. as a result of which a number of persons were injured. The respondent, the insurer of the other vehicle, settled the claims of some of the injured in negotiations outside court, after having invited the appellants to join in the negotiations. The latter refused to do so nor did they make any contribution to the payments made by the respondent who sued for contribution. The appellant denied liability and applied for the action to be dismissed in limine for no cause of action.

           

Held. The right of contribution lies in Equity or quasi-contract and not in contract, since it would not be just for a party to be relieved from a financial burden and thus be enriched at the expense of another. The right is available whenever two people are liable in solidum and not necessarily jointly or jointly and severally. When two people are liable in respect of the same matter, the presumption, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is that each must bear half of the liability, and if one pays more the other is unlawfully enriched at his expense. The underlying principle is flexible and therefore applicable to all kinds of different situations, irrespective of whether judgment has been obtained regarding liability of the person from whom contribution is claimed, provided it is to be anticipated that if action had been taken against him he would have been rendered liable.

Voting Justices: 
Primary Author
majority opinion
majority opinion
majority opinion
Full text of the opinion: 

C.A. 370/63

           

 

MUSAH BASSET and CALEDONIAN INSURANCE CO. LTD.

v.

HAPOL COMPULSORY INSURANCE LTD.

 

           

The Supreme Court sitting as a Court of Civil Appeal

[March 15, 1964]

Before Olshan P., Agranat D.P. and Berinson J.

 

 

Insurance - traffic accident - liability to third parties - right of contribution among insurers - Civil Wrongs Ordinance, 1944, sec. 64(1)(c) - Motor Vehicles Insurance Ordinance (Third-Party Risks), 1947, sec. 10(1) and (2)(a).

 

            The first appellant was involved in a traffic accident, for which he was partly responsible. as a result of which a number of persons were injured. The respondent, the insurer of the other vehicle, settled the claims of some of the injured in negotiations outside court, after having invited the appellants to join in the negotiations. The latter refused to do so nor did they make any contribution to the payments made by the respondent who sued for contribution. The appellant denied liability and applied for the action to be dismissed in limine for no cause of action.

           

Held. The right of contribution lies in Equity or quasi-contract and not in contract, since it would not be just for a party to be relieved from a financial burden and thus be enriched at the expense of another. The right is available whenever two people are liable in solidum and not necessarily jointly or jointly and severally. When two people are liable in respect of the same matter, the presumption, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is that each must bear half of the liability, and if one pays more the other is unlawfully enriched at his expense. The underlying principle is flexible and therefore applicable to all kinds of different situations, irrespective of whether judgment has been obtained regarding liability of the person from whom contribution is claimed, provided it is to be anticipated that if action had been taken against him he would have been rendered liable.

 

Israel cases referred to:

 

(1)   C.A. 479/60 - Natan Apelstein and others v. Juliet and Zwi Aharoni (1961) 15 P.D. 682.

(2)       C.A. 203/54 - Zion Shalti v. Moshe Canterowitz and others (1955) 9 P.D. 559.

(3)       C.A. 294/53 - David Caspi v. Moshe Yaakov (1955) 9 P.D. 1858.

(4)       C:A. 33/54 - Commercial Union v. Abraham Sher and others (1954) 8 P.D. 427.

(5)   C.A. 255/56 - Rolf Karman v. "HaSneh" Israeli Insurance Co. Ltd. (1956) 10 P.D. 1912.

(6)   C.A. Tel Aviv-Jaffa, 176/59 - Meir Greitzer v. "Bohan" Insurance Co. Ltd. (1960) 23 P.M. 212.

(7)   C.F. Jerusalem, 22/53 - Shlomo Zaddok v. Eliezer Ben Pinhas Schweitzer and others (1958) 16 P.M. 129.

 

English cases referred to:

 

(8)   George Wimpey and Co. Ltd. v. British Overseas Airways Corporation (1954) 3 All E.R. 661; (1955) A.C. 169.

(9)   Edward Deering v. Earl of Winchelsea, John Roes, and The Accorney-General 126 E.R. 1276 (1787).

(10)     Samuel Stirling and others v. Robert Forrester 4 E.R. 712 (1821).

(11)     Whitham v. Bullock (1939) 2 K.B. 81: (1939) 2 All E.R. 310.

(12)     Merryweather v. Nixan 101 E.R. 1337 (1799).

(13)     Palmer v. Wick and Pulteneytown Steam Shipping Company, Ltd.(1894) 2 A.C. 318.

(14)     Adamson v. Jarvis 130 E.R. 693 (1827).

(15)     The Englishman and The Australia (1895) P. 212.

(16)     The Koursk (1924) P. 140.

(17) Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co., Ltd. v. Liscer (1955) 3 All E.R. 460: (1957) 1 All E.R. 125.

           

L. Weinberg and R.A. Gipter for the appellants.

D. Friedman for the respondents.

 

AGRANAT D.P.:                  In this appeal an interesting question falls to be considered: in the event of a collision between two vehicles due to the negligence of both the drivers, a third person is injured who thereafter settles with the insurer of one of the drivers and receives from it a sum of money for damages, is that insurer entitled to resort to the second tortfeasor and his insurer for part of the sum which it paid to the injured person?

            This question was raised in an action brought by the respondent against the appellants in the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court, based principally on the following facts:

           

(a) In the evening of 6 July 1961, the first appellant was driving a lorry on the Hadera-Netanya road and because of a puncture in it, he stopped and parked the lorry at the side of the road but with its wheels projecting on to the road and without leaving enough light in the lorry, including the rear, to warn persons travelling along the road of its presence.

 

(b) Some time afterwards, a bus driven from the direction of Hadera by one Ya'acov Mokhof, collided with the lorry so parked without enough light, and as a result, a number of passengers in the bus were injured, one of them dying from his injuries.

 

(c) At the time of the accident the second appellant was the insurer of the lorry in accordance with the Motor Vehicles Insurance Ordinance (Third-Party Risks), 1947 (hereinafter called "the 1947 Ordinance"), while the respondent was the insurer of the bus as aforesaid.

 

(d) Following the accident, negotiations took place outside court between the respondent and some of the injured over their claims for damages, and a compromise was reached, according to which the respondent paid them a total sum of IL 25,010 in settlement.

 

(e) The appellants were also invited to join the negotiations but they refused to do so and did not share in the payment of damages which the injured received.

 

(f) In the above-mentioned action the appellants were requested to share in the said payment up to half and therefore to reimburse the respondent the sum IL 12,505.

 

            The appellants filed a Statement of Defence wherein they denied their obligation to share in the sum paid by the respondent in accordance with the settlement and then applied to the District Court to strike out the action in limine for lack of cause of action. In a reasoned judgment of 12 July 1963, the learned judge dismissed the application. This appeal is brought against that judgment.

           

            In support of the appeal, the appellants' counsel repeated the two main arguments, on which he had relied before the judge. (a) There is no dispute between the parties: (b) the respondent is not entitled to claim contribution from the second appellant (the lorry's insurer) in the given amount, without the obligation to make good the damage of the persons injured in the accident having been imposed on the latter in accordance with section 10 of the 1947 Ordinance. For such an obligation to arise, he went on to argue, prior conditions must be fulfilled, one that judgment was given in favour of the injured against the first appellant (the lorry driver), and the other that the first appellant received advance notice of the proceedings in which the judgment was given. The respondent does not argue here that these conditions or either of them was fulfilled before the payment was made; it was also impossible for them to be fulfilled after the payment, because when the settlement between the injured and the respondent was reached and the latter paid them monies to discharge their claims, they got full satisfaction. The second appellant therefore does not have to indemnify the respondent in respect of these monies.

           

            In my opinion there is no foundation for these arguments. To explain that, I proceed on the three following assumptions.

           

(1) In the Statement of Claim the respondent pleaded that "the accident was totally or mainly caused through the negligence... of the first defendant" (the lorry driver). In view of this plea, it was perhaps possible to think that when the respondent paid the injured persons' claims in accordance with the settlement, it acted as a volunteer and therefore has no cause of action against the appellants. But I do not wish to lay down any hard and fast rule on this point because appellants' counsel in his summation made no submission in this vein. On the other hand, respondent's counsel in his summation attributes negligence also to the bus driver for the accident in saying "that the share the respondent claims from the appellants is in accordance with the proportion between its insured's negligence and the first appellant's negligence". Not only that, but the respondent also set his claim at half the sum paid by it to those injured in the accident. Accordingly, I find that it is necessary to deal with this appeal on the assumption that the cause of the damage should be attributed to the negligence of each of the two drivers.

 

(2) Attention must be paid to the fact that owing to the aforementioned settlement the two conditions set out in section 10 of the Ordinance and mentioned above were also not fulfilled as regards the respondent. But I am of the opinion that this matter cannot prejudice the respondent's cause of action, because the fact that it paid the said monies to the injured persons in accordance with the settlement must be regarded as an admission on its part of its liability to discharge their claims, within section 10 above; that is to say, the payment together with the admission it implies takes the place of the fulfilment of those conditions. (See by analogy, the example in paragraph 14(b) in the judgment of Sussman J. in Apelstein v. Aharoni (1) at p.696: see also the remarks of Lords Simonds and Reid in George Wimpey & Co. v. B.O.A.C. (8) at pp.664 and 672; and further G. Williams, Joint Torts and Contributory Negligence, paragraph 31, p. 97; Fleming, Law of Lores, 2nd edition, pp. 694-695). It will be noted that no argument by the appellants was heard against this assumption either.

 

(3) According to the first above assumption in connection to the facts pleaded in the Statement of Claim, it follows that the two drivers cannot be regarded as joint tortfeasors, but only as tortfeasors who contributed to the occurrence of the same tortious result by negligent actions which were separate from and independent of one another (concurrent tortfeasors). Yet it is clear - and that is my third assumption – that by the respondent (the insurer of the bus driver) settling the claims of the injured, also the lorry driver (the first appellant) is freed from all liability towards them for the damage they incurred (G. Williams, op.  cit., paragraph 9, p. 34; Shalci v. Canterowitz (2) at p. 560). And the insurer of the lorry driver (the second appellant) as well is ipso facto freed from all liability towards them for the same damage. Appellants' counsel concurred in this view and indeed this concurrence is closely related to his argument that since the claims were discharged by the respondent in accordance with the settlement, no proceedings would be instituted by the injured for damages from the appellants because "a settlement with one joint tortfeasor releases the second", although in using the expression "joint tortfeasor", counsel was imprecise in his language, as explained above.

 

            In the light of these assumptions let me give the reason for my opinion that the arguments of appellants' counsel rest on shaky foundations. To do so, I must first deal with the meaning of the right of contribution.

 

(a) As is known, the source of this right lies in the rule of Equity that equity is equality, and accordingly, if two people have to fulfil the same financial claim of a third person and it is discharged by one of them, so that the other is wholly or partially freed from this burden, the former is entitled to resort to him and exercise the right of contribution at a rate considered by the court to be just in the circumstances of the case. The reason for this rule is that in such a case it would not be just that one debtor freed from financial burden should be enriched at the expense of the debtor who brought about this result. The right of contribution is therefore based on the principle of justice - literally - and not on the existence of any contractual relations whatsoever, though a contract can negate it completely or limit it (see Halsbury-Simonds, Laws of England, Vol. 14, paragraph 934, pp. 492-493). What emerges from this is that the fact that the liability which rested on the two was a liability in solidum - and not necessarily joint, or joint and. several is sufficient to attach to the payer the right of contribution. Even as early as 1787 it was decided in Deering v. Earl of Winchelsea (9) that one guarantor who paid a debt could resort to another guarantor, even though between them there was no relationship and the two guarantees were created under separate documents; and the court affirmed the rule in 1921 in Stirling v. Forrester (10). In the first of these cases Lord Eyre said (at p. 1277)

 

"the bottom of contribution is a fixed principle of justice, and is not founded in contract. Contract indeed may qualify it".

 

And then (at p. 1278)

 

"In the particular case of sureties, it is admitted that one surety may compel another to contribute to the debt for which they are jointly bound. On what principle? Can it be because they are jointly bound? What if they are jointly and severally bound? What if severally bound by the same and different instruments? In every one of those cases sureties have a common interest and a common burthern. They are bound as effectually quoad contribution, as if bound in one instrument, with this difference only, that the sums in each instrument ascertain the proportions, whereas if they were all joined in the same engagement they must all contribute equally."

 

In the second case Lord Redesdale said (at p. 719):

 

"The principle of Deering v. Lord Winchelsea proceeded on a principle of law which must exist in all countries, that where several persons are debtors all shall be equal... . The duty of contribution extends to all persons who are within the equitable obligation."

 

In the modern period the principle of contribution was formulated by Clauson J. in Whitham v. Bullock (11) in the following words:

 

"In equity the principle must be regarded as covering cases in which there is community of interest in the subject-matter to which the burden is attached, which has been enforced against the plaintiff alone, coupled with the benefit to the defendant even though there is no common liability to be sued."

 

            In view of the rationale of the contribution principle - that it is only intended to prevent unlawful enrichment - leading jurists are of the opinion that one must relate it today to "quasi-contract" (see Woodward, The Law of Quasi Contract, pp. 391, 409: G. Williams, op. cit., paragraph 30, p. 95). According to this approach the application of the principle in local law was thus explained by Cheshin D.P. in Caspi v. Yaakov (3) at p. 1863:

           

"The duty of the remainder of the debtors to share in the payment made by one debtor is 'quasi-contractual' in nature and is intended only to prevent unlawful enrichment. Where two are liable for one debt, the presumption is - if there is no proof to the contrary - that each must pay a half. If follows that if the one pays more than his share, the other is unlawfully enriched at his expense, and the extent of the enrichment is measured by what the first was forced to pay in excess of his share... . The emphasis is therefore on the unlawful enrichment at the expense of his friend, that is to say, on the unfair and unjust basis of enrichment."

 

 (See also B. Cohen J. in Greirzer v. Bohan (6) at p. 216.)

 

            These observations instruct us that the principle with which we are dealing - whether part of the rules of Equity or whether it must today be related to "quasicontract" - is of a wide and flexible character and therefore applicable to different and changing factual situations. as attested by the many examples of its practical application cited by respondent's counsel in his summation. Additional evidence in this regard can be found in an article published in Yale Law Review (Vol. 45. p. 153]:

           

"Analysis shows that contribution... is a flexible doctrine applicable in many situations where it is desirable to prevent unjust enrichment."

 

            The result of the above is that despite the absence of any issue between the parties by virtue of contract or enacted law, no logical reason seems to exist to prevent the application of the principle to the present case. On the one hand, the persons injured were entitled to claim from each of the parties the payment of damages, and on the other discharge of these claims by the respondent released the appellants therefrom and justice therefore demands that they participate in the said payment at the appropriate rate, so that they are not enriched at the expense of the respondent.

           

(b) Appellant's counsel submits: when the local legislator provided - in section 64(1)(c) of the Civil Wrongs Ordinance, 1944 - an arrangement according to which a tortfeasor who settles a claim for damages of the injured party is given the right of contribution from a joint tortfeasor, it did not direct that the tortfeasor's insurer should have an identical right when it was he who settled the claim. Furthermore, when the legislator provided in section 10 of the 1947 Ordinance that the injured person is entitled to recover damages directly from the insurer of the driver who caused the accident, again it did not provide that the same insurer should, after making good the damage, have the remedy of contribution from the other tortfeasor and his insurer. The conclusion is that the legislator's silence on this matter in the above two provisions means that it did not intend the above right to accrue to the insurer/payer, whether in respect of the other tortfeasor/driver or his insurer.

 

            This argument does not recommend itself to me. But in order to withstand it, I must further review the development of the English law in relation to the principle of contribution, to the same extent that it concerns the question of its application to tortfeasors amongst themselves.

           

(1) Considering the breadth and nature of the principle, it seems that the English judges would have had no difficulty - even before provision of the statutory arrangement mentioned in section 6(1) of the Law Reform (... Tortfeasors) Act, 1935, which is parallel to that in section 64(1)(c) of the local Ordinance - in recognising the right of the tortfeasor who paid the injured party his damages to have recourse to his joint tortfeasor. The Common law did not, however, at first proceed in this logical and direct manner. On the contrary, when the question arose - and that was in 1799 in Merryweather v. Nixan (12), Lord Kenyon laid down the rule that no right to contribution exists as between tortfeasors themselves and that, it seems, for the reason that a tortious act is regarded as an illegal act and therefore the court will not assist a plaintiff when his cause of action is based on such conduct: ex turpi causa non oritur actio. (As to this explanation of the rule, see G. Williams, op. cit., paragraph 26, p. 80.)

 

(2) Not many years passed, however, and it became apparent that the rule could lead to an unjust result because the injured party could get satisfaction by claiming against only one of the tortfeasors at his choice and with settlement of the claim by the latter, the other tortfeasor would be freed from liability towards the injured party without having to restore anything to the payer in respect of his share in the injury (dicta of Lord Herschell and Lord Watson in Palmer v. Wick, etc. Co. (13) at pp. 318, 324, 326, 327, and Lord Porter in Wimpey (8) at p. 666). It was therefore sought to ameliorate the rule so that contribution is not denied a tortfeasor who was compelled to pay - and paid - the damages of an injured party for a civil wrong committed in good faith and without moral fault. That was the factual situation dealt with in 1827 in Adamson v. Jarvis (14). There, the plaintiff sold on behalf of the defendant and according to his instructions the property of another person, in the bona fide belief - having so heard from the defendant - that the property belonged to the latter. After the true owner had sued and recovered damages from him, the seller presented a claim against his principal for return of the amount and his claim was accepted. In his judgment Best C.J. said:

 

"From the concluding part of Lord Kenyon's judgment in Merryweather v. Nixan and from reason and sound policy, the rule that wrong-doers cannot have redress or contribution against each other is confined to cases where the person seeking redress must be presumed to have known that he was doing an unlawful act."

 

(3)       It had not yet been clarified whether this rule was intended to limit the applicability of the "prohibitive" rule, laid down in Merryweather (12) to an intentional conscious tortfeasor or whether the rule still operated to deny this remedy also from a tortfeasor who had merely acted negligently. This question was dealt with by the House of Lords in Palmer (13), but was not finally settled because judgment was given in accordance with Scottish law which never recognised the above-mentioned rule at all. Lord Herschell, however, had some harsh things to say about the rule (at 324) although he agreed that it was still in force in the English law:

 

"It is now too late to question that decision in this country; but when I am asked to hold it to be part of the law of Scotland, I am bound to say that it does not appear to me founded on any principle of justice or equity, or even public policy, which justifies its extension to the jurisprudence of other countries. There has certainly been a tendency to limit its application in England."

 

            Furthermore, after pointing out - with approval and as evidence to the "softening" tendency evident in the precedents - the decision of Best C.J. in Adamson (14], he added:

           

"If the view thus expressed... be correct (and I see no reason to dissent from it), the doctrine that one tortfeasor cannot recover from another is inapplicable to a case like that now under consideration."

 

            In view of the fact that Palmer (13) was decided according to Scottish law, the words last cited were, it must be understood, not necessary for the merits of the case and were not binding (see the observations of the other Lords who sat in judgment, and especially those of Lord Halsbury at pp. 333-334; but compare G. Williams, op. cit., p. 83). Indeed, in later cases it was decided that in cases of negligence, a tortfeasor could not turn to his negligent co-actor for contribution whether the two were joint or concurrent tortfeasors (see The Englishman and The Australia (15) and The Koursk (16)).

 

(4) That was the juridical situation in the matter on the eve of the enactment of the Act of 1935 which came to close the breach and provided for the remedy of contribution as between tortfeasors themselves. In explaining the object of this law, Lord Porter said in Wimpey (8) (at p. 666):

 

"Before the passing of the Act it was left to the claimant to choose his victim. The person sued, whether he was a joint or a separate tortfeasor, if he was implicated as being partly responsible for the accident, had to abide by that choice... . The object of the Act was to cure this evil and to enable those on whom the burden had been placed to recover a just proportion from those who shared the blame."

 

(5) In his book, written in 1951, Williams expressed the view (p. 84) that since the above-mentioned Act, the rule laid down in Merryweather (12) has become obsolete, and in any case it certainly is not in force as regards negligent tortfeasors (p. 87). And then, after some years, the question arose whether the same rule still constitutes an obstacle to a claim for contribution by one joint tortfeasor against the other, not based on the 1935 Act but on another cause of action (breach of contract). I refer to the case of Romford Ice Co. v. Lister (17). According to the facts, one of the plaintiff's employees was injured when a car driven by his son, the defendant, struck him. The son also was the plaintiff's employee, being employed as a driver for many years. Because the accident occurred in the course of fulfilling this function and was caused by negligent driving, the plaintiff was liable - on the ground of vicarious liability for the driver's negligence - to pay damages to the injured party and were so paid by the plaintiff's insurance company.

 

            Afterwards, the insurer, in the name of the plaintiff, claimed - on the basis of the right of subrogation under the insurance policy - indemnity from the defendant (the driver). The latter pleaded (inter alia) that his employer (the plaintiff) is to be regarded in law, by reason of its vicarious liability for his negligence, as a joint tortfeasor and is         therefore to be denied contribution by virtue of the Common law rule, since its claim was based on the ground that the defendant had been in breach of his contractual obligation to fulfil his duty of driving with competency and reasonable care (and not on the 1935 Act).

           

            This argument was not accepted for the reason that no moral fault lay on the plaintiff for the negligent act of its employee, in respect of which it was liable to pay damages to the injured party, and it was to be considered as a joint tortfeasor only in a narrow technical sense; therefore the "ameliorating" rule, laid down by Best C.J. in Adamson (14) was applicable. This is what Romer J. had to say (at 478):

           

"The general principle, which the defendant invokes, is certainly supported by venerable authority (see e.g. Merryweacher v. Nixan), but it is not a rule of universal application... . Although the plaintiffs were liable in damages to the defendant's father for the accident which befell him, they themselves were morally blameless in the matter and their liability to the father arose solely from the fact that they were answerable for the negligence of the defendant himself. In these circumstances, it would ... be a flaw in our law, and against natural justice, to permit the defendant to rely on his own wrongful act as a defence to proceedings for breach of contract... . The current of ... authority ... on the point is distinctly the other way."

 

And after citing Best C.J., he held:

 

"The plaintiff's action in the present case, based on breach of contract, is not defeated by the suggested principle that there can be no contribution between joint tortfeasors."

 

            The judgment was upheld in the House of Lords on other grounds, but these observations of Romer J. were approved by Lord Simonds (at p. 135).

           

(c) On the basis of this survey it is to be concluded that once a person injured in a road accident is given the statutory right to levy damages from the insurer of the negligent driver, there is no need for the legislator to provide a special arrangement whereby the insurer, after having paid the damages adjudged against it, is able to claim contribution from the driver who was a partner to the injury, because the "prohibitive" rule of the Common law cannot - after being limited and "softened" as aforesaid - frustrate such a claim. The insurer which made good the damage of the injured person was not itself guilty of any illegal or immoral behaviour whatsoever with regard to the injury caused by the insured; as was emphasised by the writer of the above-mentioned Note (Yale L.R., Vol. 45, p. 154):

 

"The reasoning invoked to deny contribution between co-tortfeasors can have no application to their indemnitors, whose interests are opposed to the commission of torts, and who come into court with clean hands."

 

            I think that this should have been the law even had the statutory arrangement in section 64(1)(c) of the 1944 Ordinance not negated the validity of the rule forbidding the grant of the said remedy to one tortfeasor against his associate, since the position of the insurer who has made good the damage of a person injured in a road accident is no less strong than the employer in Lister (17), especially as in order to recover the monies it has paid it has no need of subrogation of the rights of the insured as against the other wrongdoer:

           

"Contribution does not depend on subrogation" (ibid., p. 152, note 25).

 

A fortiori the remedy should not be denied such an insurer when the juridical situation today - both in England and in Israel - is that the above-mentioned rule lacks validity. This view finds support in the words of the writer of an article in the Harvard Law Review (Vol. 50, p. 989):

 

"Where this rule has been abrogated by judicial decision, the insurer of one wrongdoer has obtained contribution from a joint wrongdoer and his insurer.... It is difficult to understand why a statute abolishing these disabilities inter se of joint wrongdoers should not have at least as great an effect as a judicial decision abolishing them."

 

            The conclusion is that in the absence of a contract to the contrary, no reason exists - whether grounded in law or in the public policy - to  justify denying the insurer the remedy of enforcing contribution against the party implicated in the injury along with the insured, after it has made good the damage caused by the negligent driving of the insured. Therefore, the argument of absence of issue falls away on its two parts.

 

(d) It will be recalled that the second main argument of appellants' counsel is that as long as the two conditions mentioned in section 10(1) and (2)(a) of the 1947 Ordinance have not been fulfilled - the giving of a judgment which charges the first appellant to pay damages to the injured persons and receipt of the statutory notice by the second appellant - its obligation to settle their claims does not and cannot arise in the future, because after the injured persons have received satisfaction it is impossible for the above conditions ever to be fulfilled; the respondent therefore does not have the right to sue the appellant for contribution. This argument also I cannot accept.

 

(1) In my view when dealing in a case for contribution with the question of the defendant's liability to fulfil the third party's monetary claim, the fact that payment in the meantime by the plaintiff might release the defendant from that liability should be ignored. These two things - the defendant's liability towards the third party and his discharge therefrom because of the plaintiff's payment - constitute separate elements of the ground for contribution and the question whether one of them exists is not dependent on the answer to the question whether the other element exists. If that were not so, the reason for this remedy is emptied of its content and value. Surely just because the plaintiff's payment releases the defendant from his monetary liability towards the third party, he is rightly required to make contribution in order not to be enriched at the expense of the plaintiff; and how can it be said therefore that the very payment sets at naught the latter's right to contribution. Hence also there is no value in the argument of the frustration of the possible future fulfilment of the two statutory conditions by the second appellant, which were stressed by counsel as preconditions of its said liability.

 

(2) If, in order to decide whether ground exists for the second appellant's liability toward the injured, we must ignore the fact of the said payment, then it is essential that we examine it according to the following test: just prior to the payment or the day when the present claim for contribution was made (I see no need to decide which is determinative between the two), did the appellant anticipate the liability to pay damages to the injured persons for the injury caused to them by the insured? This test should be applied today in the light of the rule in Commercial Union v. Sher (4), that by virtue of section 10 of the 1947 Ordinance an injured party is entitled to claim that its damage be made good directly by the insurer, provided that the insured is joined as a party to the claim (at p. 435); see also Karman v. "HaSneh" (5) at pp. 1914-1915. The meaning of this rule is that in the present case the test must be applied so that, had the injured presented their claims for damages against the two appellants the court would have found the second appellant liable to pay. To my mind it is clear our assumption must be that in this hypothetical case the court would not, in answering the said question, have considered the two above conditions of law. There are two reasons for this which go together.

 

            First, where an injured person sues the insurer and the insured together for damages under the above-mentioned rule there is no practical worth to the question whether or not the two conditions were fulfilled. That is manifest as to the requirement of notice mentioned in section 10(2)(a) of the Ordinance, the object of which is to enable the insurer to defend when the injured person sues the insured alone; where the two are sued together, the insurer knows, through the summons to court, of the claim brought against the insured and can defend itself against it; that is to say, the summons is like the statutory notice which therefore becomes superfluous (see Zaddok v. Schweitzer (7) at p. 140). As for the second condition - the requirement of a judgment, under section 10(1) of the Ordinance - here also it is clear that from a practical point of view the questions which may engage the court - according to the patties' pleadings - in such a case are merely on the one hand the driver's responsibility for the accident and on the other hand the insurer's liability by virtue of the insurance policy; such as, for example, (1) was the accident caused as a result of the driver's negligence; (2) what is the extent of the injury and the amount of the damages to be determined in respect thereof; (3) does an insurance policy exist within the meaning of the Ordinance, which covers the case? As was stated by Judge Harpazi in Greiczer v. "Bohan" (6) at p. 215:

           

"By virtue of the Insurance Ordinance as interpreted, the claims against the insurer and insured are therefore submitted together and once the claim is proven, including the fact that the event is covered by the insurance policy, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment making the insured and the insurer liable in solidum. Under this liability the plaintiff is entitled to execute the judgment directly against the insurer, without taking any action against the insured at all."

 

            Even if we have to say that from the formal, precise point of view, the insured's liability precedes that of the insurer, though they are defendants in one trial, nothing attaches to that because the question to be answered from the point of view of the claim for contribution, is only of a mere practical-legal character: whether in the hypothetical case of the injured person suing the insurer (together with the insured), the insured would expect to be liable for the damages in respect of which contribution is claimed? To this matter I shall return.

           

(3) The second reason for my view in this matter is that the two statutory conditions must be regarded as merely procedural, and therefore not to be taken into account in respect of a claim for contribution. This character of the statutory notice condition is self evident. The same is true of the condition of a judgment against the insured, witness the fact that the principal reason which influenced Olshan P. - and he was one of the two majority judges who gave section 10(1) the interpretation that there must be an issue between the injured and the insurer - is that

 

"The provision of obtaining judgment against the insured is only intended to direct that in order to find the insurer liable, proof in the form of a judgment against the insured is required, and no other proof will suffice" (Commercial Union (4), at p. 435).

 

            If that is the purpose of the said condition, it is merely of a procedural nature, a point which also emerges from Salmond (Jurisprudence, 11th ed. pp. 503,506), that the presentation of evidence - and also the giving of judgment - belongs to the procedural branch of the law. If that is the case, I find that the approach taken by Sussman J. in Apelstein (1) at p. 697, applies equally here: when, in a case for contribution brought under section 64(1)(c) of the Civil Wrongs Ordinance, against a tortfeasor who has not yet been found liable towards the injured party, a question of the liability of the defendant as regards the injured party comes up for consideration, the answer must be sought in substantive and not procedural law. Therefore, he held that the fact that the defendant in that case was the husband of the injured woman would not defeat the claim, since the prohibition provided in section 9 of the Ordinance (regarding evidence by spouses) is of a mere procedural nature and has no effect on the husband's liability under substantive law to compensate the wife for the damage caused to her. It is true that this rule was laid down for the need of interpreting the words "if he were sued" which are mentioned in section 64(1)(c), but it includes, in my opinion, a general test which belongs to the principle of contribution and effectuates it, and is in any event applicable to the present matter. For this reason, it is again necessary to ignore the two statutory conditions, owing to their procedural character.

 

(4) In his separate judgment in Commercial Union v. Sher (4) Berinson J. - who also supported the interpretation that an issue between the tortfeasor and the insurer must exist - relied on reasoning different from that of Olshan P. He said (at p. 431):

 

"I think we have to distinguish between the insurer's liability to pay the injured person and the injured person's right to sue the insurer. Section 10(1) in principle grants to those physically injured by a car ... a right to compensation from the insurer. Because of that, we do not see any substantial difference between the injured person joining such insurer as a party to his original claim against the insured and a defendant joining a third party where he argues that he is entitled to indemnity from the third party. In both instances the liability to compensation does not exist when the joinder is made but only arises if and when a judgment is given in favour of the plaintiff."

 

            From this reasoning appellants' counsel inferred that as long as judgment is not given against the insured - even where the insurer is joined as a defendant - he is under no liability to compensate the injured person and obviously no right to contribution as above arises. In my opinion, the last conclusion rests on an error. The problem which occupied Berinson J. and to which his above reasoning relates was whether at the time action was commenced in that case there was an issue between the injured plaintiff and the insurer. The affirmative answer he gave to this question had regard only to the then legal situation and was based on the fact that at that time the injured had the "right of action" against the insurer even though the "liability to pay" had not yet arisen and depended on judgment afterwards being against the insured. On the other hand, when, in a case for contribution against an insurer who has not yet been made liable to pay compensation to the injured, the question of such liability arises, a different approach must be taken in the sense that the answer to this question will be determined by the result in which the hypothetical case of the injured person against the insurer and the insured would conclude. In other words, the question that must be answered here is whether there fell on the defendant - if the plaintiff did not settle the demand for compensation- the risk and the expectation that he himself would be liable to pay the injured party. It is clear that the approach which is behind this practical - legal test, does not contradict the reasoning of Berinson J. because it lies within the purpose for which the remedy of contribution is aimed at, to avoid unjust enrichment at the expense of the plaintiff, as aforesaid.

 

(5) Having regard to the above "expectation" test, I find also that there is no value in the argument of appellants' counsel, that the conditions for giving the statutory notice and obtaining judgment against the insured have not yet lost their practical importance in a case where an injured person exercises his right to sue the tortfeasor and his insurer for damages in separate actions because in an action against the second the question whether these conditions or either of them was fulfilled might still arise. My answer is that this is not the case before us, and we are therefore entitled, in applying the said test, to take into account the possibility that here the injured persons might have filed one claim for damages against the two appellants; and also to pose to ourselves the question whether, in the light of this assumption, the second appellant would have expected to have liability imposed on it. Secondly, the assumption about splitting the process against the insurer and the insured cannot change my conclusion, because the question that must always be answered in a case for contribution is whether the anticipated result of two such hypothetical actions is that the insurer would be liable for making good the damage: and it has already been emphasised that the answer to this question does not depend on the two said conditions but only on the substantive law.

 

            In my opinion therefore the learned judge was correct in deciding to reject the appellants' application. I must add that having also reached this conclusion for reasons which to me seemed based on pure law, I find it equally desirable from the point of view of the purpose of enabling insurance companies to settle with injured people outside court.

           

            On the basis of the foregoing, the appeal should be dismissed and the appellants made liable to pay the respondent the costs of the appeal in the inclusive amount of IL 500.

           

OLSHAN P.:              I concur.

 

BERINSON J.:           I concur.

 

            Appeal dismissed.

            Judgment given March 15, 1964.

Arieh Israel Insurance Company Ltd v. Kaplansky

Case/docket number: 
LCA 2281/05
Date Decided: 
Monday, November 12, 2007
Decision Type: 
Appellate
Abstract: 

 

Facts: The respondent, a lawyer, represented a company (hereinafter ‘the company’) that filed a claim against the appellant insurance company for fire loss. Before it received the insurance payout, the company asked the respondent to sign a document stating that he no longer represented them. It explained that the insurance company refused to make the payout for as long as the respondent represented the company. The respondent signed the document. When the company received the payout, it refused to pay the respondent the agreed fee for his services. The respondent sued the company for breach of contract, and the insurance company for inducing the company to breach the contract.

 

The Magistrates Court held that only the company was liable for the respondent’s fees. Since the company was unable to pay the fees, the respondent appealed the finding of the Magistrates Court that the applicant was not liable. The District Court allowed the appeal and found the applicant liable for the fees. It held that the insurance broker had induced the company to terminate the representation contract with the respondent. It further held that the insurance broker is an agent of the insurer under Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the Insurance Contract Law, 5741-1981, and therefore the applicant had the burden of proving that in the circumstances the insurance broker had not acted as its agent.

 

The applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which granted leave to appeal on the question whether the insurance company was liable, under the law of agency, for the insurance broker’s having induced the company to terminate the representation contract with the respondent.

 

Held: Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the Insurance Contract Law lists specific situations in which the insurance broker is regarded as acting as the agent of the insurer. This case does not fall within one of those situations. In the absence of a specific provision of statute, the general law of agency applies.

 

(Majority opinion – Justices Arbel, Cheshin) The case should be returned to the Magistrates Court to consider whether the insurance broker was an agent of the applicant and whether the applicant is liable for the insurance broker’s tort of inducing the company to breach its contract with the respondent.

 

(Minority opinion – Justice Naor) Because the respondent only raised the agency argument in his closing arguments in the Magistrates Court, and such an argument requires a clarification of facts, the case should not be returned to the Magistrates Court, and the original decision of the Magistrates Court should be reinstated.

 

(Majority opinion – Justices Naor, Cheshin) The respondent should be liable for legal fees and trial costs in a sum of NIS 20,000.

 

(Minority opinion – Justice Arbel) The liability for legal fees and trial costs in the appeals should be decided by the Magistrates Court, in accordance with the outcome of the case.

Voting Justices: 
Primary Author
majority opinion
Author
concurrence
Author
concurrence
Full text of the opinion: 

LCA 2281/05

 

Arieh Israel Insurance Company Ltd

v.

Adv. Moshe Kaplansky

 

 

The Supreme Court sitting as the Court of Civil Appeals

[12 November 2007]

Before Justices M. Naor, E. Arbel, D. Cheshin

 

Application for leave to appeal the judgment of the Tel-Aviv District Court (Vice-President Y. Gross and Justices E. Covo, M. Rubinstein) of 25 January 2005 in CA 2983/01.

 

Facts: The respondent, a lawyer, represented a company (hereinafter ‘the company’) that filed a claim against the appellant insurance company for fire loss. Before it received the insurance payout, the company asked the respondent to sign a document stating that he no longer represented them. It explained that the insurance company refused to make the payout for as long as the respondent represented the company. The respondent signed the document. When the company received the payout, it refused to pay the respondent the agreed fee for his services. The respondent sued the company for breach of contract, and the insurance company for inducing the company to breach the contract.

The Magistrates Court held that only the company was liable for the respondent’s fees. Since the company was unable to pay the fees, the respondent appealed the finding of the Magistrates Court that the applicant was not liable. The District Court allowed the appeal and found the applicant liable for the fees. It held that the insurance broker had induced the company to terminate the representation contract with the respondent. It further held that the insurance broker is an agent of the insurer under Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the Insurance Contract Law, 5741-1981, and therefore the applicant had the burden of proving that in the circumstances the insurance broker had not acted as its agent.

The applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which granted leave to appeal on the question whether the insurance company was liable, under the law of agency, for the insurance broker’s having induced the company to terminate the representation contract with the respondent.

 

Held: Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the Insurance Contract Law lists specific situations in which the insurance broker is regarded as acting as the agent of the insurer. This case does not fall within one of those situations. In the absence of a specific provision of statute, the general law of agency applies.

(Majority opinion – Justices Arbel, Cheshin) The case should be returned to the Magistrates Court to consider whether the insurance broker was an agent of the applicant and whether the applicant is liable for the insurance broker’s tort of inducing the company to breach its contract with the respondent.

(Minority opinion – Justice Naor) Because the respondent only raised the agency argument in his closing arguments in the Magistrates Court, and such an argument requires a clarification of facts, the case should not be returned to the Magistrates Court, and the original decision of the Magistrates Court should be reinstated.

(Majority opinion – Justices Naor, Cheshin) The respondent should be liable for legal fees and trial costs in a sum of NIS 20,000.

(Minority opinion – Justice Arbel) The liability for legal fees and trial costs in the appeals should be decided by the Magistrates Court, in accordance with the outcome of the case.

 

Appeal allowed.

 

Legislation cited:

Agency Law, 5725-1965, ss. 1, 3(a), 6(a), 6(b).

Insurance Contract Law, 5741-1981, Chapter 1, Article 6, ss. 33, 33-35, 35, 36.

 

Israeli Supreme Court cases cited:

[1]      LA 103/82 Haifa Car Park Ltd v. Spark Plug (Hadar Haifa) Ltd [1982] IsrSC 36(3) 123.

[2]      HCJ 5064/03 Association of Insurance Brokers & Agents in Israel v. Supervisor of Insurance [2004] IsrSC 58(3) 217.

[3]      CA 702/89 Eliyahu Insurance Co. Ltd v. Orim [1991] IsrSC 45(2) 811.

[4]      CA 25/82 Weitzman v. Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd [1984] IsrSC 38(1) 501.

[5]      CA 1064/03 Eliyahu Insurance Co. Ltd v. Estate of Piemonte [2006] (1) TakSC 1806.

[6]      CA 391/77 Dadash v. Arieh Insurance Co. Ltd [1978] IsrSC 32(3) 649.

[7]      CA 102/87 Arieh Israel Insurance Co. Ltd v. Ludjia Textile Co. Ltd [1989] IsrSC 43(2) 804.

[8]      CA 422/85 Bank Leumi of Israel Ltd v. Israel Subinsurance Co. Ltd [1991] IsrSC 45(5) 32.

[9]      CA 793/76 Lookman v. Schiff [1979] IsrSC 33(2) 533.

[10]    CA 3248/91 Ben-Ari (Winiger) v. Boaron Yitzhak Ltd [1995] IsrSC 49(1) 870.

[11]    CA 166/77 Dadon v. Avraham [1979] IsrSC 33(3) 365.

[12]    CA 294/76 Anglo-Saxon Property Agency (Savion) v. Passerman [1977] IsrSC 31(1) 589.

[13]    CA 6799/02 Yulzari v. United Mizrahi Bank Ltd [2004] IsrSC 58(2) 145.

[14]    CA 207/86 Magen v. Bachar [1988] IsrSC 42(4) 63.

 

American cases cited:

[15]    Ohio Farmers Insurance Co. v. Hotler, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7210.

[16]    Mizuho Corporate Bank v. Cory & Associates, Inc., 341 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2003).

[17]    Zannini v. Reliance Insurance Co. of Illinois, 147 Ill. 2d 437, 590 N.E.2d 457 (Ill. SC 1992).

 

For the appellant — Y. Shavit, Y. Charash.

The respondent was represented by himself and A. Pardal.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

Justice E. Arbel

1.    On 28 March 1997 a fire broke out at the premises of "Anat Trade and Holdings Ltd" (hereinafter: “the company”) causing them damages. The company and its directors decided to retain the legal services of the respondent for the purpose of obtaining the insurance payout from the applicant. A fee agreement was signed between the company and the respondent, according to which the respondent was entitled to a percentage of whatever money was recovered from the applicant. On 27 August 1997 the directors of the company met with the respondent and asked him to sign a confirmation that he no longer represented the company in the matter of the insurance payout. The company directors explained to the respondent that the applicant was not prepared to make the insurance payout to them until the respondent stopped representing the company. Since the company was in a difficult economic position , it had no choice but to comply with this demand. The respondent signed a confirmation that under which he would stop representing the company, and the company received the insurance payout. The respondent then asked the directors of the company for his fees. His request was denied. He therefore filed a claim against the company and its directors for breach of contract, and against the applicant and the manager of the applicant’s claims department for inducement to breach a contract.

2.    The Petah-Tikva Magistrates Court (the honourable Judge I. Schneller) held that the company had not breached the agreement with the respondent since it was entitled to sever the contractual relationship with him at any stage of the legal representation. Therefore, the court concluded that the respondent was only entitled to remuneration from the company until the date on which the representation was terminated. The court also held that the directors of the company acted as organs of the company and therefore had not breached the contract with the respondent. Insofar as the applicant was concerned, the court held that even if the insurance broker exerted pressure to terminate the representation, it had not been proved that in doing so the broker acted as an agent of the applicant or of the manager of its claims department. The court therefore held that the company owed the respondent only fair remuneration for his work in the period prior to the termination of the representation. The remaining claims were denied.

3.    The respondent appealed the judgment of the Magistrates Court to the Tel-Aviv-Jaffa District Court (the honourable Vice-President Judge Y. Gross and Judges E. Covo, M. Rubinstein). The appeal was filed solely against the appellant and the manager of its claims department, since it became clear that it was not possible to collect from the company in view of its economic position, nor was it possible to determine the whereabouts of its directors in Israel. The District Court allowed the appeal against the appellant and found it severally liable for the fair amount of remuneration determined by the Magistrates Court. The court held that the company had breached the agreement with the respondent, since it had terminated his representation in bad faith at the insurance broker’s request. The court also held that the appellant’s insurance broker had induced a breach of the agreement between the company and the respondent by demanding the termination of the representation. Finally, the District Court held that the insurance broker was an agent of the insurer under Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the Insurance Contract Law, 5741-1981 (hereafter: ‘the Law’), and therefore if the applicant wished to prove that in the circumstances of the case the insurance broker did not act as its agent, the burden of proving this claim rested with it.

4.    The applicant argues that the District Court erred when it determined that the agreement between the respondent and the company was breached in bad faith by the company, and when it found that the insurance broker had induced a breach of that agreement. The applicant’s main argument concerns the finding of the court that the insurance broker is an agent of the applicant and that the applicant is therefore vicariously liable for the broker’s acts. It argues that raising impermissible broadening of scope of the original claim. The applicant is of the opinion that the District Court interpreted the provisions of the Law  in a manner that is contrary to their wording and that the situation in this case does not fall within any of the sections of the Law  that provide for an agency between the broker and the insurance company. According to the applicant, this issue gives rise to a fundamental legal question that justifies granting leave to appeal.

5.    The respondent claims that the District Court was correct in its factual findings as to the breach of contract and the insurance broker’s inducement of the breach. With regard to whether the insurance broker was an agent of the applicant, the respondent claims that the finding of the District Court that the insurance broker did act as the agent of the applicant is entirely consistent with the factual findings of the Magistrates Court. The respondent claims that the case falls within the scope of s. 35 of the Law, according to which, for the purpose of notices given by the insured or the beneficiary to the insurer, the insurance broker is regarded as the agent of the insurer.

6.    On 6 January 2006 we held a hearing of the application, and after we heard the arguments of the parties, we decided on 15 January 2007 to grant leave to appeal and to regard the application as the appeal. It was therefore decided that the parties would be given an opportunity to submit further arguments on the question of the applicant’s liability as the insurance broker’s principal. Now that we have received the further arguments of the parties, the time has come to decide the appeal.

Deliberations

7.    The District Court based its judgment on three findings: first, it held that the company breached the agreement that it signed with the respondent. Second, it found that the insurance broker induced the breach of contract between the company and the respondent, by demanding that the company terminate its representation by the respondent. Third, the court held that the insurance broker acted as the agent of the applicant by virtue of Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the Law, and that the applicant bore the burden of disproving this agency relationship in the circumstances of the present case.

The first two findings of the District Court are mainly factual ones that depend on the circumstances of the specific case, and therefore there is no basis for our intervention, especially not within the scope of an application for leave to appeal to a third instance (LA 103/82 Haifa Car Park Ltd v. Spark Plug (Hadar Haifa) Ltd [1]). It is, however, my opinion that the third finding of the District Court justifies a more thorough consideration of the question of the status of the insurance broker and the legal relationship between him and the insurance company, and between him and the insured.

The application of Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the Law

8.    The District Court held that ‘according to the provisions of Article 6 [of Chapter 1] of the Insurance Contract Law, 5741-1981, the insurance broker is an agent of the insurer.’ In this I believe that the lower court made an error. Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the Law (in ss. 33-35) defines three specific situations in which the insurance broker will be regarded as the insurer’s agent, and in s. 36 it provides that the Agency Law, 5725-1965 (hereinafter: ‘the Agency Law’) will apply, mutatis mutandis, to such an agency. The purpose of these sections is to protect the insured. The significance of creating a presumption of this kind is that the insurer will be liable for any failure of the broker to comply with his obligations to the insured, where the major advantage of this is that the insurer, unlike the broker, has a ‘deep pocket.’ In practice, the acts described in ss. 33-35 require the insurer to supervise the acts of the broker and to take responsibility for the acts of its broker (see HCJ 5064/03 Association of Insurance Brokers & Agents in Israel v. Supervisor of Insurance [2], at p. 232; CA 702/89 Eliyahu Insurance Co. Ltd v. Orim [3], at pp. 817-818; D. Schwartz & R. Schlinger, Insurance Law (2005), at p. 376).

During the debate that was held in the Knesset before the Law was passed, MK Mordechai Virshubski explained the idea underlying the enactment of Article 6:

‘The last thing that I wish to discuss is that we have determined the status of the insurance broker… Emotions ran high and the arguments were heated, but finally a decision was made — which was not to the liking of the insurance companies — that for the purpose of the negotiations before making the insurance contract and for the purpose of making the contract, the insurance broker will be regarded as the agent of the insurer. There was a difference of opinion on this. The insurance companies argued that they wanted to regard the broker as the agent of the insured. But we said: a person presenting himself as an insurance broker comes to the home of an innocent person and persuades him to sign an insurance agreement. Then he leaves and the person thinks in his innocence that he is insured, with all of the conditions that the broker told him, and he is happy and contented until the insurance company says: that was not my broker at all, he was not authorized to do what he did and you are not insured. Alternatively, the insurance company says that the terms that were on the signed document are not the terms that govern the relationship between it and the insured. We wanted to put an end to this dispute, and we decided that the law will say that the insurance broker will be regarded as the agent of the insurer, and what he said to the insured when he persuaded him to sign, when he made him a client of the insurance company, binds the insurance company’ (Knesset Proceedings 91, 1443 (5741)).

9.    In Article 6 the legislature addressed three specific situations in which the insurance broker is presumed to be the agent of the insurer. In the Report of the Commission for Examining the Legal Status of the Insurance Broker (1998) (hereafter: ‘the commission’s report), at p. 13, it is stated that the situations in Article 6 are characterized by the  concern that a consumer interest would be prejudiced as a result of the objectivity required of the insurance broker in a transaction. It should be pointed out that the members of the commission were unanimous in their opinion that there are no additional situations to those listed in Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the Law that require the broker to be classified as an agent.

Prof. Stern is of the opinion that the Law does not seek to regulate the relationship between broker and the insurer inter se, but it is in essence a consumer law that concerns itself solely with the interests of the insured and tries to mitigate to some degree the inequality created by the power disparity between the parties to the insurance contract. Stern therefore regards Article 6 as a kind of addendum to the Law that was added at the request of insurance brokers. He argues that what is common to the matters mentioned in Article 6 is the intention to grant additional protection to the insured in his dealing with the insurer. Even Stern is of the opinion that apart from these situations the Law does not adopt any position regarding the status of the insurance broker in relation to the insurer (Y.Z. Stern, ‘On the Legal Status of the Insurance Broker: Broker-Insurer Relations,’ 10 Bar-Ilan Law Studies (Mehkarei Mishpat) 93 (1993), at pp. 95-96).

We should therefore begin by examining whether the situation in this case falls within one of the situations that are described in the aforesaid sections.

10. Sections 33-35 of the Law provide:

‘Agency for the contract

33. (a) For the purpose of the negotiations prior to the making of the insurance contract and for the purpose of making the contract, the insurance broker shall be regarded as the agent of the insurer, unless he acted as the agent of the insured in accordance with his written request.

     (b) For the purpose of the duty of disclosure in making the insurance contract, the knowledge of the insurance broker with regard to the correct facts of a material matter shall be regarded as the knowledge of the insurer.

Agency for the insurance premiums

34. For the purpose of receiving the insurance premiums, the insurance broker who arranged the insurance or who was stated in the policy as the insurance broker is regarded as the agent of the insurer, unless the insurer gave written notice to the insured that they should not be paid to that broker.

Agency for giving notices

35. For the purpose of the insured and the beneficiary giving notices to the insurer, the insurance broker who arranged the insurance or who was stated in the policy as the insurance broker is regarded as the agent of the insured, unless the insurer gave written notice to the insured and the beneficiary in writing that notices should be sent to another address.’

The respondent claims in his supplementary arguments that ss. 34 and 35 of the Law apply. I do not think that this argument can be accepted. Section 34 specifically addresses the insurance premiums that the insured is liable to pay to the insurer, and the status of the insurance broker who receives the premiums from the insured on behalf of the insurer. The purpose of this section is to remove any concern that the insured will be left without insurance coverage because the insurance premiums that he paid to the broker were not transferred by the broker to the insurer, because the broker either ‘lost’ or used that money (Association of Insurance Brokers & Agents in Israel v. Supervisor of Insurance [2], at pp. 233-235; S. Weller, The Insurance Contract Law, 5741-1981 (vol. 1, 2005), at pp. 719-721). By contrast, the situation in our case concerns the process of obtaining the insurance payout, which is not included within the framework of this section. The inclusion of activity relating to the insurance payout within the scope of s. 35 of the law, which concerns the giving of notices by the insured and the beneficiary to the insurer, is also difficult, in view of both the language and the purpose of the section. Section 35 is intended to answer the question whether an insured  person, who gave the insurance broker the notice that is required by the insurance contract or by law, has discharged his duty vis-à-vis the insurer. Section 35 gives a positive answer to this question (Weller, The Insurance Contract Law, 5741-1981, at p. 723). It would appear that the process of obtaining the insurance payout is therefore not included within the specific sections of Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the law (see Weller, ibid., at p. 686).

Now that we have determined that Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the Law does not apply to our case, we should examine the significance of this finding with regards to the legal relationship between the insurer, the insured and the insurance broker.

The status of the insurance broker outside Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the law

11. In his book Weller raises five possibilities for determining the status of a broker in cases that are not governed by Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the Law (Weller, at pp. 687-689). First, the insurance broker may be regarded as the agent of the insured. The logic behind this is that the insurance broker should have a fiduciary duty to the insured, so that he serves the interests of the insured rather than the insurer (see support for this view in D.M. Sasson, Insurance Law (1988), at p. 51). Second, the insurance broker may be regarded as the agent of the insurer. Weller claims that had the legislature wanted to choose this possibility, it would not have legislated specific cases in which such an agency relationship applies. Third, the status of the insurance broker may merely be that of a broker, and not that of an agent. A broker, unlike an agent, has no power to perform legal acts on behalf of one of the parties, nor does he have a fiduciary duty to only one of the parties (see also I. Englard, ‘On Brokerage and Agency,’ 10 Hebrew Univ. L. Rev. (Mishpatim) 359 (1980)). Thus the broker will not serve the interests of only one party, but will have duties to both parties. Weller claims that this possibility is problematic in cases where the insurer authorizes the broker to carry out legal acts on its behalf, such as thecae where the insurer gives the broker authorization to conduct negotiations on its behalf with an insured with regard to the insurance payout and to reach an agreement with the insured in this regard. Fourth, the broker may be regarded as the agent of both the insurer and the insured. Weller discusses the difficulty inherent in such a situation where the broker has a fiduciary duty to two parties with conflicting interests. Fifth, the status of the insurance broker will depend upon the circumstances. Weller supports this possibility and claims that the status of the broker should be determined as an agent of the insured, an agent of the insurer or merely a broker in accordance with the authorization given to the insurance broker by each of the parties with regard to a certain act, and in accordance with the policy considerations that are relevant to the case.

12. In his article Stern raises concerns about applying the laws of agency to the relationship between the insurer and the insurance broker. Stern believes that the insurance broker should be regarded solely as a broker between the two parties. In his opinion, there is no agency relationship between the insurance broker and the insurer because business practice in Israel shows that the insurance broker does not have any general power or authority to bind the insurer in his dealings with the insured. He also argues that even if an apparent agency is created under s. 3(a) of the Agency Law by the conduct of the principal (the insurer) vis-à-vis the third party (the client), this cannot affect the relationship between the broker and the insurer. Lastly, he argues that the insurance broker also cannot be regarded as an agent of the insurer under Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the law, since this regulates specific situations in which the insurance broker will be regarded as the agent of the insurer, and these constitute exceptions that testify to the general rule. Stern also mentions practical problems that may arise if the law of agency is applied to the relationship between the insurance broker and the insurer. Thus, for example, he argues that such an agency will result in the insurer’s interests being preferred by the insurance broker and the insured’s interests being neglected. He is also of the opinion that applying the laws of agency will have serious repercussions for the insurer, since it will find itself liable for a wide variety of acts of the broker without any justification and without there being any special relationship of trust that derives from the broker and the insurer being acquainted with one another.

13. I am of the opinion that in practice there is no real difference between Weller’s suggestion that each case be examined according to its circumstances and Stern’s suggestion that the insurance broker be regarded mainly as a broker between the parties. This approach that regards the insurance broker mainly as a broker allows the laws of agency to be applied to the insurance broker when he acts in accordance with a consensual, apparent or statutory agency (Y. Elias, Insurance Law (vol. 1, 2002), at p. 499). On the other hand, even according to Weller, where neither of the parties proves anything with regard to the specific circumstances of the case, we should create a baseline rule It would appear that he too believes that that rule should be that the insurance broker acts solely as a broker, unless one of the parties proves that in the circumstances of the case there is an agency. The example raised by Weller in order to contradict the agency approach, in which the case where the insurer gives the insurance broker an authorization to carry out legal acts on its behalf, does not in my opinion rule out this approach since according to this example the brokerage approach will also recognize the existence of a consensual agency between the insurer and the insurance broker.

14. In my opinion, the approach that the starting point is that the insurance broker is a broker between the parties, and in any case it can be proved that there is an agreed, apparent or statutory agency relations, is a proper approach to this issue. First, Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the Law incorporates several common situations in which the legislature decided to give the insured protection by providing that the insurance broker is the agent of the insurer, and therefore the insurer is liable for the broker’s omissions and mistakes. In other situations, where the legislature did not choose to grant the insured the protection of a presumption of agency, the legal position in any situation that will arise in the future in a specific case cannot be determined categorically. Therefore, the assumption will be that the insurance broker is merely a broker between the parties, and each party will be allowed to prove the existence of an agency relationship in the circumstances of the specific case. Second, case law has laid down that the arrangement that applies to situations which occurred before the statute came into effect is that the special circumstances of each case should be examined in order to decide the question whether the person who acted as the insurance broker is an agent (CA 25/82 Weitzman v. Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd [4], at pp. 503-504). I see no reason to depart from this arrangement when we are speaking of cases that have not been regulated in statute. Third, this conclusion is supported by logic and proper policy. Even if we regard the purpose of the Law as the protection of insured against the greater power of the insurer (CA 1064/03 Eliyahu Insurance Co. Ltd v. Estate of Piemonte [5]), it is not possible to decide ab initio every question of which legal relationship will benefit the insured. Admittedly, recognizing the insurance broker as an agent of the insurer imposes liability on the insurer for the insurance broker’s omissions and thereby protects the consumer, but it should be remembered that the significance of this agency is that it imposes a fiduciary duty on the insurance broker towards the insurer, a duty that is not always desirable for the insured. Thus, in a case where the insured regards the insurance broker as his agent and reveals confidential information to him, he certainly does not want the insurance broker to have a duty to pass on this information to the insurer because the broker has a fiduciary duty to the insurer. On the other hand, even Sasson, who as we have mentioned supports the position that the insurance broker is an agent of the insured in all the cases which are not stipulated in the statute, points out the difficulty that will arise in certain cases. Thus he gives an example of an insurer who transfers the insurance payout to the insurance broker, but the broker does not transfer it to the insured because of embezzlement or insolvency. In such a case, a difficulty arises if it is determined that the insurance broker is the agent of the insured, since then the insured will not be able to make a claim against the insurer for not making the payment to him (Sasson, Insurance Law, supra, at pp. 52-53).

It should be noted that a similar, albeit more limited, position was adopted in the commission’s report (at p. 13). According to this position, the insurance broker should be given the legal status of a broker, except where there is a concern of harm to a consumer interest as a result of the objectivity that is required of the insurance broker in a transaction, in which case the insurance broker should be defined as an agent of the insurer. But at the same time the commission restricted these cases solely to those currently set out in Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the Law. The commission also proposed that the Law should state that the provisions of the Agency Law do not apply to cases that are not included in Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the Law, unless a principal expresses consent to the agency. As I have said, my opinion is that the proper approach is to allow each case to be considered on its merits, and to allow an apparent agency to be recognized in accordance with the provisions of the Agency Law and the interpretation given to it in case law.

15. I am of the opinion that, even following the approach that the starting point is that the insurance broker is merely a broker, it is possible to find solutions to situations where the insured and his interests need to be protected, and therefore there is no concern that this approach will not allow any solution in cases where the Law should ideally protect him. On the contrary, I think that considering each case on its merits will allow the court to adopt an approach that protects the insured’s interests and conform with the Law’s purpose of protecting the insured.

First, it should be emphasized that the insurance broker is not of course exempt from all obligations to the parties. He is subject to the obligations of the general law. It should be recalled that being an insurance broker gives rise to a contractual relationship that imposes various obligations on the parties, including a fiduciary duty, a prudence duty and the duty to act in a customary manner and in good faith (see Englard, ‘On Brokerage and Agency,’ supra, at pp. 363-364).

Second, in Article 6 of Chapter 1 the legislature gave the insured relatively broad protection in common situations that arise between the insurance broker and the insured, such as negotiations prior to the formation of the insurance contract and the formation of the insurance contract itself.

Third, I am in agreement with Weller that the interpretation that will be given by the court to the circumstances of the case and the answer to the question whether there is an agency in the circumstances of the case should also be influenced by the policy considerations that apply in that case. Among the policy considerations that are mentioned, it is important to emphasize the possibility of distributing the damage that is normally available to the insurer, and the more extensive information that the insurer is able to obtain with regard to his brokers in comparison to the information that the insured possesses (Weller, at pp. 678-679). These policy considerations can in appropriate cases justify a broader interpretation of the existence of an apparent agency or the application of the sections in Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the Law. In other words, the general laws of agency are what will determine the agency’s existence, scope, etc., but their application and implementation in each case will depend upon the special policy considerations in an insurance scenario.

Finally, in addition to the basic approach set out here, it is possible to argue that the supporters of the approach that considers cases on their merits will be prepared to recognize the existence of an agency relationship even when no consensual, apparent or statutory agency has been proved, solely on the basis of policy considerations that justify a recognition of an agency relationship. Admittedly, it would appear that Weller did not intend this, but I am of the opinion that a certain opening should be left for exceptional cases that will justify recognition of an agency between the insurance broker and the insurer for consumer policy considerations of protecting the insured, and therefore it cannot be said that the list in Article 6 is a closed list of cases. Admittedly great caution should be exercised when determining cases of these kinds, but the consumer should not be left unprotected in a situation where policy considerations justify protecting him by creating an agency between the insurance broker and the insurer. Naturally, within the scope of the policy considerations we should also consider those that justify refraining from extending the scope of the insurer’s liability.

16. The result is therefore that outside Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the Law the three-way relationship between the insured, the insurance broker and the insurer should be examined as an particular case of the general laws of agency, in which the laws in specific context will be given an interpretation that seeks to protect the insured. Therefore the usual method of creating an agency will be by giving an explicit authorization to an agent to act on behalf of a principal. Such an agency will more easily describe the relationship between the insurance broker and the insurer in certain cases. Nonetheless, there are situations in which there will be no explicit authorization for an agency but an agency will still be recognized between two parties. This, for example, is what happens in the case of an apparent agency, in which the agency is created by the conduct of the principal vis-à-vis the third party. Therefore, any representation of the principal, in an act or an omission, from which the third party may deduce the existence of an authority given by him to the acts of the agent, is capable of rendering the principal liable in his relationship with the third party, unless the third party knew, or should have known as a reasonable person, that the agent did not have authority (Elias, Insurance Law, supra, at pp. 502-503). The institution of the apparent agency is particularly important when we are seeking to protect the insured, since in cases where the insurance company makes a representation to the insured that the insurance broker is acting with authority, the insurance company will be liable to the insured for the acts of the broker. When examining whether there exists an apparent agency between the insurance broker and the insurer and whether the aforesaid exception thereto applies, it will be necessary to take into account the disparity in information and strength between the insurance company and the insured. Possible indications of the existence of an apparent agency can be the fact that the broker works in the insurer’s office; the receipts given by the broker bear the name and symbols of the insurance company, the broker works mainly for the insurer, and only in rare cases for other insurers; there is no distinction between the insurance broker and other workers of the insurance company (see CA 391/77 Dadash v. Arieh Insurance Co. Ltd [6], at p. 653). An additional doctrine that creates an agency is found in s. 6(a) of the Agency Law, which concerns the ratification of an action that was done by someone as the agent of another when he had no authority to do it or exceeded his authority. The section provides that ratification is equivalent to authority ab initio, provided that a right that someone registered in good faith and for consideration before the ratification is not prejudiced. I will merely point out that this doctrine has also been applied in Israeli case law with regard to the relationship between an insurer and an insurance broker (CA 102/87 Arieh Israel Insurance Co. Ltd v. Ludjia Textile Co. Ltd [7]).

17. It should also be mentioned that under the law of agency it is insufficient to find that there is an agency between the insurer and the insurance broker. In every case it is necessary to examine whether the insurance broker acted within the scope of his authority or whether he exceeded the authority given to him. Where there is a departure from the authority given, the insurance company will not be liable for that act and the insured will be given the choice of regarding the insurance broker as the other party to the contract, or rescinding it and suing the insurance broker for his damage (s. 6(b) of the Agency Law). The difficulty that may arise in cases of this kind is that the insured may be left with damage that in many cases he cannot recover from the insurance broker because of the latter’s limited financial resources. Therefore, the tendency should be to give a broad interpretation to the limits of the authority granted to the insurance broker by the insurer, and to give a narrow interpretation to a departure from authority, in order to protect the insured. The justification for this derives from the fact that the insurer is the strong party in the transaction, the party that has the tools to supervise and monitor the actions of the insurance broker, and the party that has the ability to protect itself and pay for the consequences of the acts of the insurance broker that exceed his authority. In other words, the insurer can prevent the damage in the most economic way (see Elias, Insurance Law, supra, at p. 519). This Court has said in this regard:

‘The insurer should ascertain that his agent is acting in accordance with the authority given him, and he should ascertain that he chooses a reliable insurance broker who will act to his satisfaction. Naturally, when the broker departs from his authority as an agent, the insurer will be entitled to the remedies listed in the Agency Law, 5725-1965. In my opinion, there is nothing to prevent the insurance broker telling the insured that the arrangement between them is subject to the approval of the insurance company and until then the insured does not have any insurance cover, provided that he does so expressly. But in a case like the case before us, where the insurance broker does not make the acceptance conditional but guarantees that there is insurance cover starting from a certain date, the insurer will be bound’ (CA 702/89 Eliyahu Insurance Co. Ltd v. Orim [3], at p. 818).

18. For our purposes, the key issue is the law of agency relating to the liability of the insurance company for a tort committed by the insurance broker. The principle is that the agency does not apply to prohibited acts that were done by the agent, and in a case of this kind the agent will be personally liable for his damage (see A. Barak, The Agency Law (vol. 1, 1996), at pp. 84-85) and Elias, Insurance Law, supra, at p. 520-521). Nonetheless, there are cases in which the principal will also be liable for the tort done by the agent. The insurer’s liability in cases of this kind may derive either from the law of agency, when the agent’s act falls within the scope of the external appearance of his authority, or from the law of torts itself, by virtue of the insurer’s direct or vicarious liability. In the latter case, the principal will be liable in every case where the agent commits a tort within the scope of his duties as agent, subject to certain reservations (see Barak, The Agency Law, supra, at pp. 84-87; A. Barak, Vicarious Liability in Tort Law (1964), at pp. 93-111; CA 422/85 Bank Leumi of Israel Ltd v. Israel Subinsurance Co. Ltd [8]).

19. In American law there is a distinction between an insurance agent and an insurance broker, who is a kind of middle man. Whereas the former will usually be regarded as an agent of the insurer, the latter will usually be regarded as an agent of the insured. However, the decision as to whether a person is an agent or a broker depends upon the circumstances and should be made on a case by case basis, so that the same broker may be considered for some acts the agent of the insurer, and for others the agent of the insured (see 43 Am. Jur. 2d. §123). Whether there is an agency is determined in accordance with the general rules of agency, and in insurance matters indications that are relevant to situations of these kinds are examined. An agency may be established upon the basis of an express agency, an implied agency (which is determined in accordance with what a reasonable broker would think and believe) and an apparent agency (which is determined in accordance with a representation made by the insurer to the insured (see 3 Am. Jur. 2d §72, 73). There is extensive case law in the United States on the question of when insurance brokers should be regarded as the insurer’s agent and when they should be regarded as the insured’s agent, but no comprehensive tests have been laid down in this regard. It is, however, possible to find various indications as to how the matter should be examined. One of the states that has laid down clear tests in this regard is the State of Illinois, which has laid down a four-stage test for examining the status of the insurance broker: (1) which party induced the insurance agent to start working); (2) who controlled the insurance agent’s actions; (3) who paid the insurance agent; and (4) whose interests the insurance agent was protecting (Ohio Farmers Insurance Co. v. Hotler [15]; Mizuho Corporate Bank v. Cory & Associates, Inc. [16], at p. 654; Zannini v. Reliance Insurance Co. of Illinois [17]).

In English law the legal position on this question is similar to that of  American law. While an insurance agent will be regarded as the agent of the insurer, an insurance broker will be the agent of the insured. Here too the determination as to the kind of broker concerned is made in accordance with the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the insurance broker in the specific case (R.M. Merkin, Colinvaux’s Law of Insurance (seventh edition, 1998), at pp. 324-325). Naturally, English law (like American law) also needs to determine the scope of the agency in each case, and if an insurance broker exceeds his authority, he will be liable personally, and the insurer for whom he acted will not be liable.

20. In conclusion, it should be noted that I am leaving another significant question undecided, , namely the definition of the term ‘legal act’ in the Agency Law. The agency is defined in s. 1 of the Agency Law as ‘authorizing an agent to do, on behalf of or instead of a principal, a legal act vis-à-vis a third party.’ No one denies that an insurance broker whose role is limited to locating the parties to the transaction and bringing them together without taking an active role in the negotiations does not carry out a ‘legal act,’ and therefore he will not be recognized as an agent of one of the parties (Elias, Insurance Law, supra, at p. 499). The difference of opinion arises in cases where, for example, the insurance broker takes an active part in the negotiations. The question in such cases is whether the term ‘legal act’ should be given a broad interpretation that also includes a situation of this kind. This question has been considered in case law and professional literature, but has not yet been decided (those who think that conducting active negotiations does not constitute agency: Barak, The Agency Law, supra, at pp. 391-393; Englard, ‘On Brokerage and Agency,’ supra, at p. 361; G. Procaccia, Agency Law In Israel (1986), at p. 84; Justice Y. Kahan in CA 793/76 Lookman v. Schiff [9]; Justices Mazza and Bach in CA 3248/91 Ben-Ari (Winiger) v. Buaron Yitzhak Ltd [10]; those that think that conducting active negotiations should be considered an agency: Justice M. Elon in CA 166/77 Dadon v. Avraham [11]; Justice Ben-Porat in CA 294/76 Anglo-Saxon Property Agency (Savion) v. Passerman [12]). In any case, the ramifications of this question on the relationship between an insurer, insurance broker and insured are relatively limited, since with regard to holding negotiations for the purpose of making an insurance contract, s. 33 of the Law provides a presumption that there is an agency between the insurance broker and the insurer. The question will arise when the negotiations that take place between the insurer and the insured through the insurance broker are not for the purpose of making an insurance contract, but, for example, for the purpose of receiving an insurance payout. These cases, and the special nature of the issue in so far as it concerns the relationship between the insurer, insurance broker and insured, will be considered when the appropriate case comes before us.

From general principles to the specific case

21. As stated above, I am of the opinion that Article 6 of Chapter 1 does not apply to the situation in this case, and therefore the legal status of the insurance broker in this case should be examined in accordance with the circumstances of the case. I think that the matter should be returned to the trial court (the Magistrates Court), which should consider the matter in accordance with the guidelines set out in this judgment, and decide mainly the following two questions: first, whetherthe insurance broker was an agent for the applicant; and second, if the answer to the first question is yes, whether the applicant liable for the tort that was committed by the insurance broker against the respondent. In this sense the appeal is allowed. The costs of this proceeding should be taken into account by the Magistrates Court to which the matter is returned, subject to the outcome of its new judgment.

 

 

Justice M. Naor

1.    I too am of the opinion that the appeal should be allowed. Notwithstanding, there is no reason, in my opinion, to return the case to the Magistrates Court.

2.    As my colleague Justice Arbel held, the justification for granting leave to appeal in this case is the determination of the District Court that the insurance broker acted as the agent of the applicant by virtue of article 6 of the Insurance Contract Law, 5741-1981 (hereafter: the Law). I agree with the detailed legal analysis of my colleague, according to which article 6 of the Law does not apply to this case. For this reason the appeal should be allowed and the determination of the District Court should be set aside. My colleague Justice Arbel examined whether it is possible to find a basis for the determination of the District Court outside the scope of article 6, and determined  guidelines on that subject. While I agree with my colleague’s legal analysis in my opinion, I see no justification in this instance for returning the case to the trial court. This is because the respondent’s argument, which was accepted in the District Court, that the insurance broker acted as the applicant’s agent (hereafter: “the agency claim”), was constituted an improper change of front, being raised at a late stage of the case and there is therefore, in my opinion, no reason to return the hearing of the case to the Magistrates Court.

3.    It should be noted that the agency claim — whether or not by virtue of article 6 of the Law — is not mentioned in the amended statement of claim that was filed in the Magistrates Court. The agency claim was raised for the first time, and in brief, in the respondent’s closing arguments in the Magistrates Court (p. 8 of the respondent’s closing arguments in the Magistrates Court). But raising the claim in closing arguments is insufficient. The Magistrates Court itself did not regard it as an argument that had been legally raised, and it held that it had not been argued or proved:

‘It should be emphasized that even if the broker is indeed the one who, for some reason or other, pushed to sever the relationship, and I do not say that this was the case, it was neither claimed nor proved that in such an act, if it indeed occurred, the broker acted as an agent [of the applicant] or at its request .’

Because of the way in which the written pleadings were worded, the factual issue regarding agency was not adjudicated in the Magistrates court, neither in the examination of the witnesses nor in the other evidence. The insurance broker was not summoned to testify by either of the parties in the Magistrates Court. Incidentally, even in the District Court the agency claim was not raised as a main argument. The issue of the broker was mentioned incidentally in the section of arguments concerning witnesses that ought to have been summoned to the trial (para. 40 of the respondent’s skeleton arguments in the District Court).

4.    My colleague and myself do not dispute that the agency claim in this case requires a clarification of the facts. But in my opinion there is no justification for ordering such a clarification of the facts at this stage and returning the case to the trial court, since, as I have said, the agency argument was not originally raised in the trial court in the proper manner. In this regard, it is insufficient to raise the argument for the first time in closing arguments in the trial court, unless the other party agrees to the change of front , or if permission is given to amend the written pleadings (CA 6799/02 Yulzari v. United Mizrahi Bank Ltd [13], at para. 6 of the opinion of Justice E. Hayut). In our case the applicant did not agree to the change of front, and the permission of the court to amend the written pleadings in this regard was neither requested nor granted. This also has an effect at the appeal stage, since the court of appeal will not consider a ground of appeal that was not raised in the trial court, especially where it is a factual argument that is raised for the first time in the appeal (CA 207/86 Magen v. Bachar [14], at para. 8 of the opinion of President M. Shamgar). Such is the argument in this case.

5.    It would appear that in the Magistrates Court the respondent, Advocate Kaplansky, had a ‘late start.’ It was only in his closing arguments that he raised the agency claim. In my eyes, the timing of that claim, which obviously requires factual clarification -  - being raised at the closing arguments stage - is also an indication that the claim was not a serious one even from respondent's standpoint, and in my opinion he should not be allowed to retry his case in accordance with an improved version.

6.    Therefore, were my opinion accepted, we would set aside the judgment of the District Court, as my colleague proposes, and we would reinstate the judgment of the Magistrates Court without returning the case to it. The respondent shall pay legal fees totalling NIS 20,000, as well as trial costs.

 

 

Justice D. Cheshin

I agree with the opinion of my colleague Justice Arbel. But since the respondent only raised the agency claim for the first time in his closing arguments in the Magistrates’ Court, which constituted a departure from his written pleadings and the raising of a new factual dispute between the parties, as described in the opinion of my colleague Justice Naor, I would find him liable to pay the applicant’s cost in the litigation before the District Court and before us.

I therefore propose that the respondent shall pay legal fees in the sum of NIS 20,000, as well as the trial costs.

 

 

Appeal allowed.

2 Kislev 5768.

12 November 2007.

 

Israel Oil Refineries Ltd. v. New Hampshire Insurance

Case/docket number: 
CA 4525/08
Date Decided: 
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Decision Type: 
Appellate
Abstract: 

Facts: The Tel Aviv District Court granted a petition for the recognition of a judgment rendered by an English court, which had declared that an insurance policy issued by the respondent (New Hampshire Insurance) to an Israeli company, Oil Refineries Ltd. – the appellant – was void on the grounds that a substantial matter had not been disclosed to the issuer. The respondent brought the action in the English court after its sibling company (AIG Europe, which had underwritten the policy) had been served a third party notice in an Israeli proceeding brought against the appellant. The District Court ruled that the foreign judgment in favor of the respondent should be recognized pursuant to s. 11(a) of the Foreign Judgments Law, which provides for the direct recognition of foreign judgments under specified conditions.  Oil Refineries Ltd. appealed, on the grounds that the foreign judgment was issued in a proceeding initiated at a time that a parallel proceeding between the same parties had been pending in Israel. 

 

Held: (Justice Arbel) The Foreign Judgments Law establishes a track for the recognition of foreign judgments (including sub-tracks for direct and indirect recognition) as well as a track for the enforcement of such judgments. The relevant track here is the direct recognition track (s. 11(a)), but the Foreign Judgments Law stipulates (in s. 11(a)(3)), with regard to such recognition, that the relevant treaty must allow only the recognition of judgments that are enforceable pursuant to Israeli law, thus requiring the court to determine which of the conditions for enforcement are to be applied to the direct recognition track. The best possible interpretation, based on a purposive reading of the statute’s language, is to adopt an intermediate view of the interaction between the enforcement requirements and the direct recognition track. According to this view, not all the enforcement track conditions are to be applied, and only those that constitute the threshold requirements for enforcement under Israeli law – i.e., those conditions that further the purpose that underlies the stipulation of requirements for enforcement – are to be applied with respect to the judgment for which recognition is sought. 

 

Pursuant to this interpretation, the provisions of s. 6(a)(5), denying enforcement to a judgment rendered in a foreign court in which an action was brought while a parallel proceeding between the same parties was pending in an Israeli court, will apply here to the recognition of the English court’s judgment. The sub-section should be applied to the direct recognition track – both because logic dictates that section 6(a) should be applied as a whole, and because its purpose – to prevent abuse of the ability to initiate a second proceeding in another country in order to avoid an Israeli court’s judgment – conforms to the overall purpose of that track. Once the District Court had found that the foreign judgment had been rendered in a proceeding initiated while a parallel proceeding was pending in Israel, it should have applied s. 6(a)(5) and refused to recognize the English court’s judgment.

 

(Vice President Rivlin, concurring). Section 11(a)(3) of the Foreign Judgment Law allows for recognition of a foreign judgment when the relevant treaty does not obligate Israel to recognize judgments in a manner that deviates significantly from Israeli law; the statute requires that in order to be recognized, the foreign judgment must qualify under the provisions of the relevant treaty. Nevertheless, the Israeli court retains discretion in terms of its ability to determine whether the recognition of the judgment is in compliance with treaty provisions. With respect to the pending proceeding provision of s. 6(a)(5), the statutory language does not grant the court discretion with regard to the non-enforceability of judgments rendered in actions brought while there is a parallel pending proceeding in an Israeli court, but the relevant treaty leaves the matter of enforcing such judgments up to the deciding court’s discretion, Nevertheless, the treaty cannot be said to be one that deviates significantly from the relevant Israeli law. Pursuant to the statute, the Israeli court must take as its starting point the rejection of the judgment, while allowing the party seeking recognition to prove that circumstances justify a change from that initial position.  Here the appellant has not met that burden, and the foreign judgment should not be recognized. 

 

(Justice Rubinstein, concurring). The impact of the pending proceeding will be determined in accordance with the language of the treaty, rather than the language of the local statute. Although the treaty here confers discretion upon the court in this matter, that discretion should have been exercised so as to deny the judgment’s recognition, based on considerations of the litigant’s lack of good faith.  Furthermore, the stipulation in s. 11(a)(3) that the treaty require only the recognition of judgments that “are enforceable pursuant to Israeli law” is a reference to s. 3 of the Foreign Judgments Law, the specific section establishing the requirements for allowing foreign judgments to be enforced, and not to s. 6, dealing with defenses against enforcement.   

Voting Justices: 
Primary Author
majority opinion
Author
concurrence
Author
concurrence
Full text of the opinion: 

CA 4525/08

Israel Oil Refineries Ltd.

v.

New Hampshire Insurance Co.

The Supreme Court sitting as the Court of Civil Appeals

[25 January 2010]

Before Vice President E. Rivlin, Justices E. Arbel and E. Rubinstein

 

Appeal of the Judgment of the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court in E.J. 189/03 (Tel Aviv-Jaffa) (President U. Goren) issued on 31 March 2008

Facts: The Tel Aviv District Court granted a petition for the recognition of a judgment rendered by an English court, which had declared that an insurance policy issued by the respondent (New Hampshire Insurance) to an Israeli company, Oil Refineries Ltd. – the appellant – was void on the grounds that a substantial matter had not been disclosed to the issuer. The respondent brought the action in the English court after its sibling company (AIG Europe, which had underwritten the policy) had been served a third party notice in an Israeli proceeding brought against the appellant. The District Court ruled that the foreign judgment in favor of the respondent should be recognized pursuant to s. 11(a) of the Foreign Judgments Law, which provides for the direct recognition of foreign judgments under specified conditions.  Oil Refineries Ltd. appealed, on the grounds that the foreign judgment was issued in a proceeding initiated at a time that a parallel proceeding between the same parties had been pending in Israel. 

Held: (Justice Arbel) The Foreign Judgments Law establishes a track for the recognition of foreign judgments (including sub-tracks for direct and indirect recognition) as well as a track for the enforcement of such judgments. The relevant track here is the direct recognition track (s. 11(a)), but the Foreign Judgments Law stipulates (in s. 11(a)(3)), with regard to such recognition, that the relevant treaty must allow only the recognition of judgments that are enforceable pursuant to Israeli law, thus requiring the court to determine which of the conditions for enforcement are to be applied to the direct recognition track. The best possible interpretation, based on a purposive reading of the statute’s language, is to adopt an intermediate view of the interaction between the enforcement requirements and the direct recognition track. According to this view, not all the enforcement track conditions are to be applied, and only those that constitute the threshold requirements for enforcement under Israeli law – i.e., those conditions that further the purpose that underlies the stipulation of requirements for enforcement – are to be applied with respect to the judgment for which recognition is sought. 

Pursuant to this interpretation, the provisions of s. 6(a)(5), denying enforcement to a judgment rendered in a foreign court in which an action was brought while a parallel proceeding between the same parties was pending in an Israeli court, will apply here to the recognition of the English court’s judgment. The sub-section should be applied to the direct recognition track – both because logic dictates that section 6(a) should be applied as a whole, and because its purpose – to prevent abuse of the ability to initiate a second proceeding in another country in order to avoid an Israeli court’s judgment – conforms to the overall purpose of that track. Once the District Court had found that the foreign judgment had been rendered in a proceeding initiated while a parallel proceeding was pending in Israel, it should have applied s. 6(a)(5) and refused to recognize the English court’s judgment.

(Vice President Rivlin, concurring). Section 11(a)(3) of the Foreign Judgment Law allows for recognition of a foreign judgment when the relevant treaty does not obligate Israel to recognize judgments in a manner that deviates significantly from Israeli law; the statute requires that in order to be recognized, the foreign judgment must qualify under the provisions of the relevant treaty. Nevertheless, the Israeli court retains discretion in terms of its ability to determine whether the recognition of the judgment is in compliance with treaty provisions. With respect to the pending proceeding provision of s. 6(a)(5), the statutory language does not grant the court discretion with regard to the non-enforceability of judgments rendered in actions brought while there is a parallel pending proceeding in an Israeli court, but the relevant treaty leaves the matter of enforcing such judgments up to the deciding court’s discretion, Nevertheless, the treaty cannot be said to be one that deviates significantly from the relevant Israeli law. Pursuant to the statute, the Israeli court must take as its starting point the rejection of the judgment, while allowing the party seeking recognition to prove that circumstances justify a change from that initial position.  Here the appellant has not met that burden, and the foreign judgment should not be recognized. 

(Justice Rubinstein, concurring). The impact of the pending proceeding will be determined in accordance with the language of the treaty, rather than the language of the local statute. Although the treaty here confers discretion upon the court in this matter, that discretion should have been exercised so as to deny the judgment’s recognition, based on considerations of the litigant’s lack of good faith.  Furthermore, the stipulation in s. 11(a)(3) that the treaty require only the recognition of judgments that “are enforceable pursuant to Israeli law” is a reference to s. 3 of the Foreign Judgments Law, the specific section establishing the requirements for allowing foreign judgments to be enforced, and not to s. 6, dealing with defenses against enforcement.   

 

Legislation cited

 

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law, 5718-1958 – ss. 1, 6(a)(1)-(5), 6(b),  6(c), 11 (a)(1)-(4), 11(b), 11(c).

 

Israeli Supreme Court Cases cited

 

[1]       CA 3441/01 Anonymous v. Anonymous  [2004] IsrSC 58(3) 1.

[2]       CA 490/88 Coptic Motran of the Holy See of Jerusalem and Near East v. Adila [1990] IsrSC 44(4) 397.

[3]       CA 970/93 Attorney General v. Agam [1995] IsrSC 49(1) 561.

[4]       FH 40/80 Paul King v. Yehoshua Cohen [1982] IsrSC 36(3) 701.

[5]       HCJ 693/91 Efrat v. Director of the Population Register [1993] IsrSC 47 749.

[6]       CA 499/79 Ben Dayan v. IDS International Ltd. [2004], IsrSC 38(2) 99.

[7]       CA 423/63 Rosenbaum v. Julie [1964] IsrSC 18(2) 374.

[8]       LCA 1817/08 Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pronauron Biotechnologies  Inc. (2009) (unreported).

[9]       CA 3924/08 Goldhar Corporate Finance Ltd. v. Klepierre S.A. (2010) (unreported).

[10]     CA 7833/06 Pamesa Ceramica v. Yisrael Mendelson Engineering Technical Supply Ltd. (2010) (unreported).

[11]     CA 1137/93 Ashkar v. Hymes [1994]   IsrSC 48(3) 641.

[12]     CA 1268/07 Greenberg v. Bamira (2009) (unreported).

[13]     CA 10854/07 Pickholtz v. Sohachesky (2010) (unreported).

[14]     LCA 346/06 Hazan v. Club Inn Eilat Holdings Ltd. (2006) (unreported).

[15]     LCA 1674/09 Lechter v. Derek Butang (2009) (unreported).

[16]     CA 1327/01 Ephrayim v. Elan [2010] IsrSC 56(6) 775.

[17]     LCA 2733/07 Amiron S. T. L. Finance and Investment Ltd. v. Wallach (2007) (unreported).

Israeli District Court Cases Cited:

 

[18]     EnfC (TA) 408/00 Tower Air Inc. v. Companies Registrar (2004) (unreported).

[19]     CA (TA) 2137/02 AIG Europe (UK) Ltd. v. Israel Oil Refineries, Ltd. (2004) (unreported).

English cases cited:

[20]     Tuvyahu v. Swigi [1997] EWCA Civ. 965.

Jewish law sources cited:

Mishna Gittin, Chapter 4, Mishna 3.

Treaties cited:

Convention between the Government of Israel and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island Providing for the Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters – arts. 2(1), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5), 4(1).

For the appellants: Attorney Y. Shelef, Attorney P. Sharon, Attorney S. Sheffer

For the respondent: Attorney E. Naschitz

 

JUDGMENT

Justice E. Arbel:

This is an appeal of a judgment issued by the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court in EnfC 189/03 (per President U. Goren) on 31 March 2008, granting the respondent’s petition for recognition of a foreign judgment.

 1.   The respondent is the New Hampshire Insurance Company (hereinafter, also: “New Hampshire”), which is domiciled in the State of Delaware in the United States. In 1994, New Hampshire issued a third-party liability insurance policy to the appellant, Oil Refineries Ltd., which is engaged in, inter alia, the operation of oil refineries and the refining of petroleum and petroleum products (hereinafter: “ORL”). The insurance policy (hereinafter: “the policy”) was valid from 1 August 1994 through 31 July 1995. The issuance of the policy was brokered by PWS International Ltd., a brokerage firm registered in England, and it was underwritten by AIG Europe Ltd. (UK) (hereinafter: “AIG”), which is a sibling company to New Hampshire, also domiciled in England.

2.    On 29 June 1998, several farmers filed a suit (CA 2351/98) (hereinafter: “the Main Claim”) against ORL and other companies for agricultural damages that they claimed had been caused as a result of their use of defective light mazut fuel which had been manufactured by ORL and sold by the other companies. On 20 September 2000, ORL amended its third party notice in the Main Claim, joining AIG as a third party.

3.    On 16 October 2000, New Hampshire brought an action in an English court, seeking a judgment declaring that the policy was void based on the non-disclosure of a significant matter prior to its issuance. The significant matter was stated to be the claims for compensation that had been filed against ORL in 1990 in the Nazareth District Court by various flower growers, for damages caused to them from 1988 to 1989 due to the use of defective light muzat fuel manufactured by ORL. The English court allowed the claim and declared the policy to be void (hereinafter: “the foreign judgment”). ORL did not appeal the decision.

4.    On 30 September 2002, New Hampshire filed an action by way of an originating motion in the Jerusalem District Court (EnfC 1256/02), seeking recognition of the foreign judgment pursuant to ss. 11(a) and 11(b) of the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law, 5718-1958 (hereinafter: “the Foreign Judgments Law” or the “Statute”). The Jerusalem District Court ruled that the motion should be moved to the Tel Aviv District Court, which had jurisdiction to adjudicate it.

Deliberation in the District Court

5.    The Tel Aviv District Court heard the motion and held that the foreign judgment should be recognized pursuant to s. 1(a) of the Foreign Judgments Law, which outlines a track for the recognition of foreign judgments – the court having ruled out the applicability of a different track that allows for the incidental recognition of a foreign judgment and which is outlined in s. 11(b) of the Statute.

6.    The District Court determined that the Convention between the Government of Israel and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island Providing for the Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters (hereinafter: “the Convention”) applied. The court also held that the Convention’s provisions complied with the conditions established in ss. 11(a)(1) and 11(a)(2) of the Foreign Judgments Law – meaning that there was a treaty in effect between Israel and Great Britain that was applicable, and that Israel had undertaken to recognize the relevant type of foreign judgment.

7.    The District Court also discussed the issue of whether the condition set out in s. 11(a)(3) of the Foreign Judgments Law requires that in order for a foreign judgment to be recognized, the relevant treaty must comply with all the Statute’s conditions regarding the enforcement of a judgment. The court ruled that there was no such requirement, and held that in any event, s. 6(a) of the Foreign Judgments Law would not apply to the process of recognizing a foreign judgment through either the track outlined in s. 11(a) or the track outlined in s. 11(b). The court noted, among its reasons for reaching this conclusion, the legislature’s interest in separating the requirements for recognizing a foreign judgment from the requirements for enforcing such a judgment – an objective which ruled out the possibility that s. 11(a)(3) was meant to also include within it all the requirements for the enforcement of a foreign judgment that are contained in the Foreign Judgments Law. Additionally, the court found that the legislative intent had been that an undertaking given in the framework of a treaty for the mutual recognition and enforcement of civil judgments, such as the Convention under discussion, is sufficient for the purpose of compliance with s. 11(a)(3). The court also relied on the case law of this Court regarding an incidental recognition – case law which has established that the conditions for the recognition of a foreign judgment should be less than those required for the enforcement of such a judgment.

8.    The District Court held that the Convention’s conditions for recognition had been met, as required by s. 11(a)(4) of the Statute. The court acknowledged that at the time the legal proceeding first began in the English court there had been a pending proceeding between the same two parties in the Israeli court, and that thus, pursuant to art. 3(5) of the Convention, the court could have refused to recognize the foreign judgment rendered by the English court. Nevertheless, the court chose to recognize the foreign judgment on the basis of the principles and objectives that form the foundation of the laws of recognition – which include an interest in bringing the litigation of a matter to an end; the desire to do justice for the party winning the case; and a recognition that the country that had issued the foreign judgment was the proper forum for the adjudication of the matter. Additionally, the court clarified that there were grounds for recognizing the foreign judgment, as the foreign judgment could create an issue estoppel in Israel in light of the identity of the estoppel laws in Israel and in England.

9.    The District Court also held that the English court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter which was the subject of the foreign judgment, as required by art. 3(a)(2) and 4 of the Convention. The court based its determination on the consent element mentioned in art. 4(1)(a) of the Convention, which is sufficient to confer international jurisdiction on the English court. The presence of such consent was inferred from the fact that ORL did not appeal the result of the proceeding regarding the lack of the English court’s authority, for the purpose of leave to serve papers outside of the jurisdiction. The matter of ORL’s consent was also inferred from the fact that the main deliberation, after the conclusion of the proceeding regarding extra-territorial service, continued normally until the judgment was rendered, and ORL did not appeal that judgment either.

10.  The District Court rejected the appellant’s argument that public policy prevented the recognition of the foreign judgment, pursuant to art. 3(2)(d) of the Convention, due to the judgment having allegedly been obtained in bad faith and as an abuse of legal proceedings. The court held that the public policy ground should be narrowly construed in the context of recognition of foreign judgments and that it would be appropriate to reject a foreign judgment on such a ground only rarely – noting that this case was not one of those rare occasions in which a public policy defense would suffice.

This appeal followed.

The parties’ arguments

11.  The appellant argues that the District Court erred in recognizing the foreign judgment despite its determination that there had been a pending proceeding between the same parties at the time that the British proceeding was initiated. It argues against the court’s decision, which the court based on general principles of the rules regarding recognition of judgments, not to exercise its authority pursuant to art. 3(5) of the Convention dealing with the recognition of a judgment in a proceeding that was initiated at the time that another proceeding was already pending, when – under the circumstances of this case – the respondent had behaved improperly and in bad faith. According to the appellant, the respondent’s bad faith behavior in initiating legal proceedings also constitutes a violation of public policy, and therefore art. 3(2)(d) of the Convention would support the non-recognition of the foreign judgment as well. Additionally, the appellant argues that in this case the English court lacked jurisdiction, and that therefore the requirements of arts. 3(2)(a) and 4 have not been satisfied.

12.  The appellant also argues that the District Court erred in holding that s. 11(a)(3) of the Foreign Judgments Law does not include a requirement that the conditions stipulated for enforcement of a foreign judgment must also be satisfied in order for the foreign judgment to be recognized. The appellant argues that such an interpretation is contrary to the language of the section. Because of this interpretation, the court did not make any determination as to whether the foreign judgment complied with the conditions stipulated in ss. 3, 4 and 6 of the Statute. An examination of these sections, the appellant argues, would have led to the conclusion that the foreign judgment should not be recognized, because the respondent had not provided proof regarding the foreign law; because the English court lacked international jurisdiction; because the respondent had acted in violation of public policy; and because of the initiation of the foreign proceeding while another proceeding regarding the same matter was pending.

13.  The respondent, on the other hand, argues that the appeal should not be adjudicated on its merits since the matter has become purely theoretical and academic, as ORL is not entitled to any compensation or restitution pursuant to the policy, even if it is valid. Regarding the substance of the matter, the respondent argues that the appeal should be denied, based on the holdings of the District Court. In addition, the respondent argues that the District Court’s finding that there was a pending proceeding – between the same parties and regarding the same matter – at the time that the proceeding was initiated in England was erroneous, because, the respondent argues, AIG was the party in the proceeding that was pending in Israel, while New Hampshire was the party in the proceeding that produced the foreign judgment. Thus, the respondent argues, the parties were not identical, as is required pursuant to both the Statute and the Convention.

 

Discussion and decision

14.  First, the respondent’s argument that the deliberation regarding this case is purely theoretical and academic must be rejected. It appears that there is a real dispute between the parties regarding the consequences of the policy’s validity, and therefore it cannot be said that this is a purely theoretical matter. In any event, this question could arise in the future in other contexts, and I therefore find it appropriate to discuss the appeal on its merits.

15.  The key issue in this case is the relationship between s. 11(a) of the Statute and the other provisions of the Statute, and whether the conditions stipulated in the Statute for the enforcement track will also apply with respect to the recognition track. Before turning to a discussion of this issue, we need to establish a foundation and describe the normative rules that apply in connection with the recognition of a foreign judgment.

Recognition of a foreign judgment

16.  As is customary under Israeli law, a foreign judgment is not recognized automatically, and an absorption proceeding is required in order for it to become enforceable and recognized (CA 3441/01 Anonymous v. Anonymous [1], at pp. 11-12; CA 490/88 Coptic Motran of the Holy See of Jerusalem and Near East v. Adila [2], at p. 404; A. Shapira “Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments,” 4 Tel Aviv Univ. L. Rev. (Iyyunei Mishpat) 509 (1976) (hereinafter: “Shapira 1”), at pp. 509-510; C. Wasserstein Fassberg, “Finality for Foreign Judgments,” 18 Hebrew Univ. L. Rev. (Mishpatim) 35 (1988), at p. 37). The manner in which a foreign judgment is absorbed in Israel is regulated in the provisions of the Foreign Judgments Law.

17.  The Foreign Judgments Law establishes two tracks for the absorption of a foreign judgment in Israel – one involving the enforcement of the foreign judgment and the other involving its recognition. A petition for the enforcement of a foreign judgment is in effect a petition for the enforcement of an existing debt between the parties, while the recognition of a foreign judgment is needed in situations that do not fit into the enforcement framework and in which the party requires a recognition of the foreign judgment itself and of the rights which it confers. Justice M. Cheshin noted the following with regard to the distinction to be made between the two tracks:

‘The distinction made between enforcement and recognition is not coincidental nor is it an arbitrary one. Its source is in the difference between the type of judgments that are enforceable and those which are intended to be recognized directly, and in any event, in the difference between an act of enforcement and an act of direct recognition. Indeed, as my colleague has remarked, and as has been accepted as the rule and is the view taken by scholars, enforcement – at its core – deals with obligations imposed on one person vis-à-vis another (in personam obligations), while recognition does not involve the imposition of any debts and it is what the word signifies; it recognizes rights which can include property rights, including rights vis-à-vis the entire world – rights erga omnes – although these are not the only rights that can be covered by these judgments’ (CA 970/93 Attorney General v. Agam [3], at p. 572).

18.  Furthermore, the Statute establishes two sub-tracks within the recognition track. The first is outlined in s. 11(a), and it allows for a foreign judgment to be recognized as part of a proceeding that is initiated especially for that purpose (hereinafter: “the direct track”); the second is outlined in s. 11(b) of the Statute and enables the recognition of a foreign judgment as a matter which is incidental to another matter being adjudicated, and for the purpose of that adjudication only (hereinafter: “the indirect track”). Justice Goldberg described the distinction between the two tracks as follows:

‘When one party alleges a finding contained in a foreign judgment in order to create an issue estoppel in a local litigation, the allegation is of an incidental recognition of the judgment. This is to be distinguished from direct recognition, which is necessary when the foreign judgment constitutes the ground for the cause of action in the local court, or when what is required is a declaration that the foreign judgment is to be enforced’ (Coptic Motran v. Adila [2], at p. 404).

19.  The legislature appears to have taken note of the substantive difference between the recognition and the enforcement tracks, and therefore established different procedures for these two tracks for the absorption of foreign judgments in Israel. Among the main differences between the two tracks is the fact that the Statute, as stated, provides for two sub-tracks for the recognition of a foreign judgment – the direct track and the indirect track – as compared to the single track established for the enforcement of foreign judgments; and the requirement stipulated in the Statute that there be a bilateral or multilateral agreement for the purpose of direct recognition of a foreign judgment, a requirement which is not prescribed for the enforcement track.

20.  Section 2 of the Statute provides that the authority to enforce a foreign judgment arises only in the framework of the Statute’s provisions. The case law has dealt with the question of whether a foreign judgment can be recognized other than in that framework, and when the conditions stipulated in the Statute have not been met. In Attorney General v. Agam [3], this question was answered in the negative. The Court held that a foreign judgment could not be recognized outside of the tracks established in the Statute, even though the implications of such a rule create a certain difficulty. As Justice Goldberg wrote:

‘There will be those who argue that the result we have reached – that a foreign order of inheritance can be absorbed in our law only through one of the tracks in the Enforcement Law – is not a desirable one, and that its significance is that foreign judgments from an entire area of law can be neither recognized nor enforced’ (ibid. [3], at p. 569).

It should be noted that the source of the difficulty in allowing foreign judgments to be recognized only in the framework of the Foreign Judgment Law is that recognition through the direct track requires the existence of a treaty with the country in which the foreign judgment was rendered. This requirement significantly limits the possibility for direct recognition of foreign judgments since – at present – Israel is party to only four bilateral treaties (with Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, Great Britain and Spain). We note that the indirect track does not provide a satisfactory solution for this difficulty in all cases. Thus, for example, in terms of the absorption of a foreign order of inheritance, the indirect track cannot be used, as the applicant’s only interest is in the absorption of the foreign judgment itself – directly, and not as an aside to another matter (see Attorney General v. Agam [3]). In Anonymous v. Anonymous [1], President Barak considered the possibility of changing the rule:

‘This result is both undesirable and harsh. It is doubtful whether the language of the Statute or its purpose requires it . . . Section 11 of the Statute, as originally drafted, did not refer at all to the possibility of direct recognition. This section is an addition to the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law . . . until that time, the parties would, as a matter of course, request recognition of a foreign judgment outside of the Statute. Nothing in the amendment’s legislative history indicates that there was a desire to transform the direct recognition track into an exclusive track. In addition, as s. 2 of the Statute provides:  “No foreign judgment will be enforced in Israel other than pursuant to this Statute.” The section refers to enforcement and not to recognition, and even regarding enforcement it has been held that the enforcement of a foreign judgment will be permitted through a suit brought on the basis of the judgment, which is not pursuant to the Statute . . . It therefore appears that the time has come to rethink the validity of the Agam rule . . .’ (Anonymous v. Anonymous [1], at pp. 14-15).

In their case law, the trial courts have also expressed the view – which has not yet been discussed by this Court – that a foreign judgment may be recognized other than pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign Judgment Law if certain conditions are met. Thus, for example, the possibility of such recognition has been mentioned in insolvency proceedings (EnfC (TA) 408/00 Tower Air Inc. v. Companies Registrar [18]). However, it would appear that the case before us does not necessitate an in-depth examination of this important question, as it was not discussed by the District Court and the parties did not raise it in their pleadings. We nevertheless join in President Barak’s call, made in the judgment in Anonymous v. Anonymous [1], for full and complete legislative regulation of the issue of recognition of foreign judgments.

21.  In any event, since in this case the District Court ruled out the use of the indirect track, and as the parties are not appealing that part of the District Court’s holding, we need only discuss the direct track. As noted above, this track is established in s. 11(a) of the Foreign Judgments Law, which itself includes four sub-sections:

11. (a)  An Israeli court or tribunal will recognize a foreign judgment regarding which the following conditions have been met:

(1)  A treaty with a foreign country applies to it;

(2)  Israel has undertaken, in that treaty, to recognize foreign judgments of its type;

(3)  The undertaking only applies to foreign judgments that are enforceable pursuant to Israeli law;

(4)  The judgment satisfies all the conditions in the treaty.

Section 11(a) was added in 1977, some 19 years after the Statute was first enacted, and until that time the indirect track was the only track available pursuant to the Statute for the recognition of foreign judgments. The addition of the section was intended to establish a direct track for the recognition of foreign judgments within the framework of the Statute. The new section created a number of difficulties, among them, as stated, the section’s requirement that Israel have entered into a treaty with the foreign country (see also Attorney General v. Agam [3] and Anonymous v. Anonymous [1]). An additional difficulty created by the section was the manner of its drafting. Thus, for example, Justice Mannheim noted that there is no substantive difference between the three conditions included in the section, and in his view “it appears that it would be both possible and desirable to draft these three sub-sections more coherently and with less complexity” (S. Mannheim, “Direct Recognition of Foreign Judgments, By Force of the Statute,” 7 Tel Aviv Univ. L. Rev. (Iyyunei Mishpat) 703 (1980), at p. 704). An even greater linguistic problem arises in connection with s. 11(a)(3):

Section 11(a)(3) provides as follows: “The undertaking only applies to foreign judgments that are enforceable pursuant to Israeli law.” Two problems arise from this language in the section: first – what is the significance of the subjection of enforceability pursuant to the section to the provisions of the Enforcement Law (since in light of the unequivocal language of s. 2 of the Statute, no foreign judgment may be enforced in Israel other than pursuant to the Enforcement Law); second – what is the significance of the fact that this subjection refers not only to the judgment itself but also to the “undertaking” (which, in light of the language of sub-section (2), is Israel’s undertaking, given in the above-mentioned treaty, to recognize certain foreign judgments)’ (ibid., at p. 704).

The limited number of treaties to which Israel is a party, alongside the ambiguous wording of the sub-sections, has led to a situation in which only a few petitions have been submitted for recognition through the direct track, and thus even though more than thirty years have passed since the amendment was enacted, this Court has not yet discussed this issue in depth (C. Wasserstein Fassberg, Foreign Judgments in Israeli Law – Deconstruction and Reconstruction (1996), at p. 53). The time has now come to clarify the matter and to determine which conditions are to be applied for the purpose of recognizing a foreign judgment pursuant to the direct track.

Examination of the conditions for the direct recognition track

22. As stated, the Statute presents four conditions relating to the direct recognition track. The first condition is that there must be a treaty to which Israel and the country in which the foreign judgment was rendered are parties. The second condition is a requirement that in the context of the agreement, Israel has agreed to recognize foreign judgments of the relevant type, such as pursuant to a provision in the treaty requiring that Israel must recognize foreign judgments in civil matters. The third condition in the section is that the undertaking must apply only to foreign judgments that are enforceable in Israel. The fourth and final requirement in the section is that the relevant treaty conditions have been satisfied.

23.  Since in this case there is a treaty between Israel and England, and because it provides, in art. 2(1), that it will apply to judgments in any civil proceeding, the conditions established in s. 11(a)(1) and in s. 11 (a)(2) have been fulfilled. We have thus arrived at s. 11(a)(3), and the question arises as to its proper interpretation. What was the legislature’s intention in using the term “enforcement” in the framework of s. 11(a)(3), which deals with the conditions established for the recognition track? Was the intention, as the appellant argues, to apply all of the conditions relating to the enforcement of foreign judgments to the procedure for the direct recognition of foreign judgments? Or is it the case, as the District Court believed, that a purposeful interpretation of the section should be used in order to restrict its application, so that not all of the conditions appearing in the Statute with respect to the enforcement of such judgments will apply to the direct recognition track? We note that if we adopt the District Court’s approach, we must examine the actual significance of the requirement in s. 11(a)(3) of the Foreign Judgments Law, and determine the content that should be included within it.

 

 

Interpretation of s. 11(a)(3) of the Foreign Judgments Law     

24.  In order to interpret a section in a statute, we must examine it in a number of stages. First we must examine the statutory language and identify the linguistic options available for such interpretation. Only an interpretation that is grounded in the statutory language and which falls within the accepted linguistic possibilities may be used (A. Barak, Legal Interpretation (vol. 2, ‘Statutory Interpretation,’ 1993), at p. 82). At the second stage, we must investigate and disclose the purpose and objective of the legislation. A statute will be given the meaning which, among the linguistic possibilities, realizes the statute’s purpose (FH 40/80 Paul King v. Yehoshua Cohen [4], at p. 715). The statute’s purpose is comprised of its subjective and objective purposes. The subjective purpose is the purpose that the enacting legislature seeks to realize at the time that the statute was enacted. The objective purpose of statutory material is the purpose that the legislation is intended to achieve in a democratic, modern, society (HCJ 693/91 Efrat v. Director of the Population Register [5], at p. 764). In the last stage, if the legislative material has various purposes, we must exercise judgment in order to balance these various purposes, after assigning the proper weight to them. Note that the judge’s determination at this stage will be reached within the framework of limitations established in the earlier stages. This balancing is to be carried out on the basis of, inter alia, the statutory language, the legislative intent, the social background, the legal background, and the basic principles (Barak, Legal Interpretation, supra, at p. 92).

Literal interpretation

25. As noted above, s. 11(a)(3) of the Statute establishes a requirement that the “undertaking only applies to foreign judgments that are enforceable pursuant to Israeli law”. It appears that from a linguistic perspective, the language of the section could encompass more than one possibility, due to the ambiguity of the term “enforceable”. The use of this term effectively creates an entire spectrum of linguistic possibilities regarding the application of the conditions for the enforcement of foreign judgments to the direct recognition track. Generally speaking, we can point to three main possibilities regarding the section. The first, as the appellant argues, would provide that all conditions stipulated for the enforcement of foreign judgments should be applied to the direct recognition track. This is a maximalist position. The second, a minimalist view, would interpret the term “enforceable” as referring only to the enforceability of judgments that have the same basic nature as the particular foreign judgment, meaning judgments that fall within the area of law to which it belongs – such as civil judgments, criminal judgments, etc. According to this interpretation, the foreign judgment would only need to meet the basic definitional requirement appearing in s. 1 of the Statute: “a judgment rendered by a court in a foreign country regarding a civil matter, including judgments ordering the payment of compensation or damages to an injured party, even if not rendered in a civil case.” The third possibility is an intermediate one, pursuant to which the foreign judgment would need to meet the basic requirements for the absorption of a foreign judgment in Israel. These requirements would constitute a sort of set of “red lines”, at the basis of which is an interest in preventing the abuse of the legal process.

Thus, at the next stage, we must study the statutory purpose and choose the most appropriate option for interpretation, in light of that purpose.

Purposive interpretation: subjective purpose

26. The purpose of the legislative amendment that added s. 11(a) in 1977 was to enable compliance with bilateral and multilateral treaties. Before the amendment, Israel faced an obstacle in terms of entering into bilateral and multilateral treaties, so long as the matter of direct recognition in the State of Israel had not been formally organized by statute. The explanatory note to the draft law stated the following: “Section 11 constitutes an obstacle with respect to Israel’s accession to these treaties. In order to overcome this obstacle, it is proposed to give force to these treaties . . .” (Draft Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Amendment No. 2) Law 5737-1977, Draft Laws 246). Thus, it cannot be that an amendment which was intended to give force to bilateral treaties would lead to a situation in which those treaties could not be implemented because of numerous conditions included within the framework of the track for direct recognition of a foreign judgment – or to the creation of an asymmetry between the provisions of the Statute and those of a treaty. This means that the maximalist interpretation – according to which all the conditions stipulated for the enforcement of foreign judgments are imposed in connection with the direct recognition track as well – is not consistent with the subjective purpose. An additional indication that this interpretation is inconsistent with the legislative intent can be found in s. 11(c) of the Statute, which provides that “[t]he provisions of s. 6(b) and (c) will apply in proceedings involving the recognition of a foreign judgment pursuant to this section.” Assuming that s. 11(c) applies to the direct track (see M. Shava, “Direct Conversion of a Foreign Judgment in Israel and the Rules Applying To It,” 35(2) Ono Coll. L. Rev. (Kiryat HaMishpat) 40 (2002)), the maximalist interpretation would render its language irrelevant – because, since s. 6(b) and s. 6(c) of the Foreign Judgments Law are a part of the provisions relating to the enforcement of foreign judgments, that would, according to the maximalist interpretation, apply to the direct track anyway, and there would be no need to specifically note that fact in s. 11(c).

 

Objective purpose

27. From the perspective of the objective purpose of the Statute as well, it would seem that the maximalist interpretation – according to which all the provisions regarding enforcement of foreign judgments contained in the Foreign Judgments Law would also apply to the direct recognition track – leads to several seemingly absurd results. First, this interpretation leads to an absurdity regarding the relationship between the enforcement track and the recognition tracks. The enforcement of a foreign judgment, by its nature, contains within it the recognition of that judgment, since a foreign judgment must be recognized before it can be enforced (Wasserstein Fassberg, Foreign Judgments in Israeli Law, supra, at p. 153). And as Professor Shapira has written, “the enforcement of a foreign judgment necessarily requires its recognition, but not every recognition of a judgment will necessarily lead to its enforcement. This means that a court will, as a matter of course but also as a matter of necessity, recognize every foreign judgment that it enforces, but it is not compelled to enforce every judgment that it is prepared to recognize” (A. Shapira, Recognition and Enforcement (vol. A), at pp. 511-512). Thus, necessarily, the conditions that apply to the recognition track will be less than those that apply to the enforcement track, or at least equal to them. Indeed, Justice Ben-Porat has held regarding the indirect track  “ . . . that the legal provisions regarding recognition will not be stricter than the terms for enforcement, since if the foreign judgment is of a quality that establishes that it should be enforced, it would, a fortiori, be suitable for recognition . . . according to my view, it is not possible that the Statute’s conditions for recognition would be stricter than the conditions for enforcement . . . ” (CA 499/79 Ben Dayan v. IDS International, Ltd. [6], at p. 105).

28. Second, the maximalist interpretation will lead to an absurd result regarding the relationship between the direct and indirect recognition tracks. The reason for this is that the holding in Ben Dayan v. IDS International, ibid., [6] was that the indirect recognition track does not require compliance with all the enforcement conditions in the Foreign Judgments Law, while the maximalist interpretation suggests that full compliance with all the Statute’s enforcement conditions is required for the direct recognition track. This is an illogical position, since the main track – the direct recognition of a foreign judgment – would then involve the need to prove the fulfillment of many more conditions than would be required for the secondary and alternative indirect recognition track. This situation would create additional burdens for both litigants and the courts, as reliance on an earlier recognition of a foreign judgment in any future litigation arising in connection with that judgment is possible only when the recognition has been accomplished through the direct recognition track. In contrast, when the indirect track is used, the deliberation regarding the foreign judgment’s recognition is only incidental to the adjudication of the main matter, and a court will therefore need to re-adjudicate the issue of that recognition in any future litigation that arises. This means that the indirect track necessitates a new deliberation regarding the recognition of the foreign judgment each time the matter of its recognition arises, instead of enabling one substantive deliberation in a single proceeding (see M. Shava, “Direct Conversion of a Foreign Judgment in Israel,” supra, at p. 44). An interpretation that imposes stricter requirements for the more efficient direct recognition track creates a situation in which litigants will prefer the less efficient indirect track because compliance with its conditions will be easier.

29. On the other hand, a minimalist interpretation providing that only s. 1 of the Foreign Judgments Law is relevant to the direct track is also problematic. If this approach is followed, a foreign judgment could theoretically qualify for recognition in Israel even though it had been obtained through fraud or was rendered by an entity which had no jurisdiction to do so, because the “red lines” provisions established in the Foreign Judgments Law with respect to the enforcement track would not be applied to the direct recognition track. It is important to note that the treaties to which Israel is currently a party have provisions that are similar – if not identical – to those that appear in the Foreign Judgments Law and which apply to the direct recognition track pursuant to s. 11(a)(4), which requires compliance with the provisions of the relevant treaty. Nevertheless, it would seem to be appropriate to leave in place the “security net” of the red lines that had been established by the legislature regarding the enforcement of a foreign judgment – so that they will always apply, regardless of the language of a specific treaty, even with respect to the recognition of a foreign judgment through the direct track.

30.  I have concluded from the above analysis that in terms of a purposive view, an intermediate interpretation is to be preferred over either a maximalist or a minimalist interpretation. It is therefore necessary to examine which of the statute’s provisions that apply to the enforcement track should also be applied to the track for the direct recognition of foreign judgments according to an intermediate interpretation. The only sections of the Statute to be applied should be those which, in the legislature’s view, constitute a type of threshold requirement or a set of red lines regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments. The remaining provisions – those that are substantively related to the enforcement track only – should not be applied to the direct track. Additionally, the provisions to be included must be examined with reference to an additional basic distinction between the enforcement and the recognition tracks. According to the Foreign Judgments Law, a treaty is not required in order for a foreign judgment to be enforced, and it is therefore not necessary that a particular foreign judgment comply with the provisions of any treaty. Thus, it would be logical that all the conditions for enforcement, included those that are beyond the basic threshold requirements, should be organized in a statute. In contrast, regarding the direct recognition of foreign judgments, countries should be allowed a range of freedom with respect to the manner in which the recognition of foreign judgments is arranged, through agreements that they reach amongst themselves. Therefore, the only conditions to be applied to the direct recognition track should be those basic requirements without which it is not possible to recognize any foreign judgment whatsoever.

Application of s. 6 to the direct recognition track

31. In this case, the question arises as to whether s. 6(a) of the Foreign Judgments Law also applies to the direct recognition track. (The appellant’s other arguments relate to grounds for recognition regarding which there is an overlap between the provisions of the law and those of the Convention, and it is therefore clear that these grounds will apply with respect to the foreign judgment in this case.) As to section 6(a) of the Foreign Judgments Law, captioned “Defense Against Enforcement”, it provides as follows:

6.   (a)  A foreign judgment will not be declared enforceable if one of the following has been proven to the court:

(1)  The judgment was obtained through fraud;

(2)  The opportunity given to the defendant to make arguments and to bring evidence, prior to the issuance of the judgment, was not, in the view of the court, reasonable;

(3)  The judgment was rendered by a court that lacked jurisdiction to issue it pursuant to the rules of international private law that apply in Israel;

(4)  The judgment is in conflict with another judgment that has been issued regarding the same matter between the same litigants, and which remains in force;

(5)  At the time that the action was brought in the court in the foreign country, another action regarding the same matter and between the same litigants was pending before an Israeli court or tribunal.

This section thus establishes a threshold condition with respect to the enforcement of foreign judgments. The purpose of this section is to prevent the possible abuse of proceedings for the enforcement of such judgments. The defenses included in this section form a sort of set of red lines regarding the issue – such that if one of them is crossed, the enforcement of the foreign judgment in Israel will not be allowed. Therefore, in accordance with the intermediate interpretation, this is a section that should apply to the direct track as well. Thus, for example, s. 6(a)(1), which refers to a defense against the enforcement of a foreign judgment based on it having been obtained through fraud, should be applied to the direct recognition track, as it is clear that a foreign judgment that was obtained through fraud should be neither enforced nor recognized. This rule, it would seem, should serve as a framework for all of the bilateral treaties to which Israel becomes a party – a condition without which there should be no treaty, and the importance of which this Court has emphasized in the past (Anonymous v. Anonymous [1], at pp. 17-18; Wasserstein Fassberg, Foreign Judgments, at pp. 55-56; A. Shapira, “Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments,” 5 Tel Aviv Univ. L. Rev. (Iyyunei Mishpat) 38 (1976) (hereinafter: “Shapira 2”), at pp. 42-43). The other sub-sections of s. 6(a) also constitute basic rules regarding the recognition of foreign judgments. Section 6(a)(2) refers to a situation in which the defendant did not have a reasonable opportunity to argue the case during the course of the foreign proceeding. Section 6(a)(3) refers to the requirement that the foreign judgment must have been rendered by a court that had jurisdiction to do so pursuant to the rules of private international law followed in Israel. Section 6(a)(4) refers to a situation in which the foreign judgment conflicts with a judgment rendered in the same matter between the same parties and which remains in force. All these are basic conditions which, from a purposive view, must undoubtedly be imposed on the recognition track as well, according to the interpretation analyzed above. “And it has already been held that the recognition rules must be influenced by the enforcement rules such that a harmonious relationship will be established among them” (Ben Dayan v. IDS International [6], as cited by President Barak in Anonymous v. Anonymous [1], at p. 17).

32. Unlike the other sub-sections of s. 6(a) of the Foreign Judgments Law, there is a certain ambivalence as to whether or not s. 6(a)(5) should be applied to the track for the direct recognition of foreign judgments.  This sub-section creates a defense against the enforcement of a foreign judgment if “[a]t the time that the action was brought in the court in the foreign country, another action regarding the same matter and between the same litigants was pending in an Israeli court or tribunal.” The ambivalence is due to the fact that on its face, the sub-section is not equal in its severity to the other red lines that are established in s. 6(a). In my view, the sub-section should be applied to the direct track, notwithstanding this distinction – both because of linguistic interpretation issues and because of the purposive aspect. From a linguistic perspective, it is logical to apply all of s. 6(a) of the Foreign Judgments Law as a single unit rather than breaking it up into its components, and it appears that this is what the legislature had actually intended. There is nothing in the Statute’s language that provides a basis for separating between the different sub-sections of s. 6(a). Regarding the purposive aspect, I believe that the purpose of s. 6(a)(5) is a proper one, in terms of there being a need for a requirement that any foreign judgment comply with it as a preliminary condition for its recognition. The objective of the section is to prevent a situation in which a litigant against whom a proceeding has been initiated in Israel would have the option of responding by simultaneously appealing to a foreign forum regarding the same subject and regarding the same matter – in order to reach what is from his perspective a better result –  and then concluding the process in the foreign forum and finally seeking to have the foreign judgment recognized in Israel (Shapira 2, supra, at pp. 55-56; Wasserstein Fassberg, “Finality for Foreign Judgments,” supra, at pp. 22-23). The achievement of this objective is relevant to both the process of enforcing foreign judgments and the process of recognizing them. Thus, in my view, this section must be included within the core set of rules that restrict a court’s flexibility with respect to the recognition of foreign judgments.

33. Nevertheless, this sub-section needs to be interpreted in a purposive manner which is in conformity with the objectives of the direct recognition track’s, such that the recognition of a foreign judgment will be denied only in cases that constitute an abuse by one of the parties of the possibility of being able to make use of two different proceedings in two different countries. Thus, for example, in this case, such an interpretation would lead to the conclusion that there is no real conflict between s. 6(a)(5) of the Foreign Judgments Law and art. 3(5) of the applicable Convention. Article 3(5) of the Convention provides as follows: “Where the court applied to is satisfied that, at the time when proceedings were instituted in the original court in the matter in dispute, proceedings as to the same matter between the same parties were pending before any court or tribunal of the country of the court applied to, the latter may refuse to recognise the judgment of the original court.”  Article 3(5) of the Convention does grant the court discretion – discretion which does not arise under s. 6(a)(5) of the Foreign Judgments Law – to decide whether it will exercise its right to refuse to recognize the foreign judgment when there is a pending proceeding. Nevertheless, I believe that by using a purposive interpretation, and through the use additional legal tools, it is possible to outline a complete overlap between the circumstances in which a court must exercise its right to refuse to recognize a foreign judgment in accordance with the Convention, and the circumstances in which a court will determine that s. 6(a)(5) of the Foreign Judgments Law should not be applied. An example of this would be a case in which a company that had initiated a proceeding in a foreign forum had no knowledge of a third party notice that had been served upon its sibling company but which was effectively directed at the company itself, in a proceeding in the country in which the petition for recognition has been brought. In such a situation, art. 3(5) of the Convention should be applied such that the court, because of the circumstances, would decide not to exercise its right to refuse to recognize the judgment. At the same time, under these circumstances, the court would be required – even pursuant to s. 6(a)(5) of the Foreign Judgments Law – to hold that a pending proceeding defense would not be allowed, since in such a case the parties in the two proceedings would not actually be identical, as they are required to be pursuant to the language in that section. An additional example would be a case in which the party that initiated the proceeding in the foreign forum is the party that later bases its defense on the existence of a pending action, after the foreign forum had ruled against it. In such a situation, a court would likely, pursuant to art. 3(5) of the Convention, exercise its discretion and decide to recognize the foreign judgment. In such circumstances, the court could, pursuant to s. 6(a)(5) as well, use an estoppel ground against the party raising the defense.

From the general to the particular

34. In my view, since the District Court has held that in this case there had been a pending proceeding in Israel between the same parties and regarding the same matter at the time that the proceeding was initiated in the foreign forum, it should have applied s. 6(a)(5) of the Foreign Judgments Law, and it should therefore have refused to recognize the foreign judgment in this case.

I note further that the respondent’s argument that there were actually different parties in the proceedings in Israel and in England must be rejected. The District Court’s holding clearly indicates that New Hampshire knew of the existence of a pending proceeding in Israel, and even filed its suit in England as a result of the existence of this proceeding and in order to use the foreign judgment within the context of the Israeli proceeding. The initiation of the proceeding in the foreign country was the first and the easy opening for New Hampshire and for AIG – a step they took without having made any attempt to exhaust the possible legal measures in Israel. Thus, for example, they could have argued in an Israeli court that clause 13 of the insurance policy contained a stipulation of jurisdiction, pursuant to which all disputes were to have been resolved in English courts only – a point I raise without expressing an opinion as to whether such a stipulation would have been valid (Y. Zussman, Civil Procedure (vol. 7, 1995), at pp. 41-42). Regarding this matter, I note that Attorney Paul Cha’s testimony, given on behalf of New Hampshire and quoted extensively in the District Court’s opinion, appears to indicate that New Hampshire and AIG had acted improperly vis-à-vis the appellant. Thus, for example, AIG represented itself as the insurer for the policy in one proceeding, while in another proceeding, New Hampshire represented itself as the insurer. In light of these matters, the lower court was justified in holding that under the circumstances of the case, even though the parties in the two proceedings were technically different parties, they should nevertheless be viewed as being identical, from a substantive perspective.

35. Because I have determined that s. 6(a)(5) of the Foreign Judgments Law applies to the circumstances of this case, there is no need for a discussion of the appellant’s arguments relating to non-compliance with the Convention provisions. I nevertheless note, as a matter that is beyond what is necessary, that the foreign judgment in this case does not comply with the Convention’s conditions, as s. 11(a)(4) of the Foreign Judgments Law requires, and thus, in light of the District Court’s holdings and the circumstances of the case, it should have refused to recognize the foreign judgment pursuant to art. 3(5) of the Convention.

Therefore, if my view is accepted, the appeal should be allowed and the recognition of the foreign judgment should be withdrawn. The respondent will pay attorney’s fees in the amount of NIS 20,000, along with the costs of the litigation.

 

 

 

Vice President E. Rivlin

 

  1. I have read the learned opinion of my colleague, Justice E. Arbel, and I agree with the result that she has reached. I nevertheless wish to add and explain my position regarding the interpretation of the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law, 5718-1958 (hereinafter: “the Foreign Judgments Law” or “the Statute”).

The original language of the Statute established two tracks for the absorption of foreign judgments: the enforcement track, which granted the court authority to order the enforcement of a foreign judgment in Israel; and the indirect recognition track, which enabled a court to incidentally recognize a foreign judgment in the course of the adjudication of a matter within its jurisdiction, with such recognition being valid for the purpose of that matter, “if the court sees that it is right and just to do so” (s. 11(b) of the Statute). The Statute as it was drafted at the time did not establish a direct recognition track which would enable a court to issue a judgment that declared the full recognition of a foreign judgment. It was believed that the absence of a direct recognition track meant that the legislature did not wish to interfere with the English common law rules, which had been followed in Israel prior to the enactment of the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law (see Mannheim, “Direct Recognition of Foreign Judgments,” supra, at p. 704). Section 11(a), which was added to the Statute in the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law (Amendment No. 2) 5737-1977 (hereinafter: “the Statutory Amendment”), created a third track within the Statute – the track for the direct recognition of foreign judgments, in situations in which the State of Israel has, through a treaty, committed itself to recognizing foreign judgments of the relevant type, and has made that commitment to the country in which the foreign judgment was rendered.

  1. However, very few petitions for direct recognition have been adjudicated since the Foreign Judgments Law was amended. The Statute’s requirement that such recognition be dependent on the existence of a treaty has led to a situation in which petitions for direct recognition are adjudicated only rarely.  This is because the State of Israel has signed only very few treaties relating to the recognition of foreign judgments, and most of these apply to civil and commercial judgments, which by their nature primarily include obligations that are capable of being enforced and which do not necessitate any use of the direct recognition track. This Court has ruled in the past that foreign judgments may not be recognized other than in the framework established in the Statute – and thus, when there is no treaty between Israel and the country in which the judgment was rendered, there is still no possible application of the direct recognition track. (See Attorney General v. Agam [3], and for criticism of the rule in Agam, see Anonymous v. Anonymous [1]). Additionally, as my learned colleague Justice Arbel has noted, the vague language of s. 11(a) creates substantial difficulties in terms of its implementation. Thus, “[the path] opened by s. 11(a) is so narrow and full of obstacles that it is doubtful it will ever be used” (Mannheim, “Direct Recognition of Foreign Judgments,” supra, at p. 710). In light of this, there are few cases in which the court is likely to decide the matter of the application of the track established for the direct recognition of foreign judgments, and this Court has not yet examined s. 11(a) thoroughly  (see Wasserstein Fassberg, Foreign Judgments in Israeli Law, supra, at pp. 51-52). The case before us presents a rare opportunity to discuss our interpretation of s. 11(a).

The s. 11(a) condition – the undertaking

  1. Section 11(a) establishes the conditions for the direct recognition of a foreign judgment:

11. (a)  An Israeli court or tribunal will recognize a foreign judgment regarding which the following conditions have been met:

(1)  A treaty with a foreign country applies to it;

(2)  Israel has undertaken, in that treaty, to recognize foreign judgments of its type;

(3)  The undertaking only applies to foreign judgments that are enforceable pursuant to Israeli law;

(4)  The judgment satisfies all the conditions in the treaty.

Two central problems arise in the context of the interpretation of s. 11(a)(3):

‘[F]irst – what is the significance of the subjection of enforceability pursuant to the section to the provisions of the Enforcement Law (since in light of the unequivocal language of s. 2 of the Statute, no foreign judgment may be enforced in Israel other than pursuant to the Enforcement Law); second – what is the significance of the fact that this subjection refers not only to the judgment itself but also to the “undertaking” (which, in light of the language of sub-section (2), is Israel’s undertaking in the above-mentioned treaty, to recognize certain foreign judgments)’ (Mannheim, “Direct Recognition of Foreign Judgments,” supra, at p. 704).

My colleague Justice Arbel focused on the interpretation of the first difficulty – the significance of the stipulation that foreign judgments may be recognized only subject to the conditions for enforcement that are established in Israeli law. In my review of the interpretation of s. 11(a), I wish to discuss the second obstacle regarding its interpretation – the meaning of the subjection of the undertaking to the requirements for enforcement. My colleague’s starting point, according to which the requirement applies to the foreign judgments for which recognition is sought – is not an obvious point. It appears to me that we cannot ignore the fact that the section relates its requirements to the undertaking that the State of Israel has given, and not to the foreign judgment  for which recognition is sought.

The language of the Statute provides that “the undertaking applies only to foreign judgments that are enforceable pursuant to Israeli law” (emphasis added). The word “undertaking” appears first in sub-section (2), where the section refers to the undertaking that Israel has given in the treaty with the foreign country. The “undertaking” in sub-section 2 is therefore an undertaking pursuant to an international treaty dealing with the issue of the enforcement of foreign judgments. Thus, it appears that the simple literal interpretation of s. 11(a)(3) is that the condition established in that sub-section for the direct recognition of a foreign judgment is that the treaty pursuant to which the recognition of the foreign judgment is being sought must apply only to foreign judgments that are enforceable pursuant to Israeli law. As is known, when a court is required to interpret legislative material, it may not attribute to that material any meaning that deviates from the range of linguistic possibilities (A. Barak, Legal Interpretation, supra, at p. 82). The natural and normal interpretation of the section is that the requirement of conformity to the Israeli law of enforcement will apply to the treaty through which the State of Israel has given an undertaking, and this is the interpretation that is consistent with the statutory language.

4.     The correctness of this interpretation is made clearer in light of the original text of the proposed amendment of the Enforcement Law, and in light of the explanatory material that accompanied it. According to the proposed amendment, s. 11(a) was intended to serve as a continuation of s. 13, which deals with the Minister of Justice’s authority to enact regulations regarding the operation of the Statute. The original proposed text of the section was the following: 

‘If a treaty with a foreign country provides that Israel undertakes to recognize foreign judgments as described in the treaty, and the undertaking applies only to foreign judgments that are enforceable pursuant to Israeli law, the Minister of Justice may, with the approval of the Knesset’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, order that such foreign judgments be recognized if they satisfy all the conditions in the treaty’ (Draft Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Amendment No. 2) Law 5737-1977, Draft Laws 246).

The explanatory notes to the proposal stated that “a condition for the use of this authority [the Minister of Justice’s authority to give force to the Treaty – E.R.] will be that Israel has not, in the relevant treaty, undertaken to recognize foreign judgments that cannot be ordered to be enforced pursuant to the existing law”.  The intention behind this amendment to the Statute was thus to avoid the situation that had existed until that time, when the only track available pursuant to the Statute was the indirect recognition track – a track in which the matter of the recognition of the foreign judgment was left to the absolute discretion of the court, in each and every case. Under those circumstances, doubt arose as to whether the State of Israel could make any commitments to recognize foreign judgments, since there was no certainty that these judgments would be recognized by the Israeli courts (see the deliberations for the first reading of the Draft Law, Knesset Proceedings 80, 427). The original intention of the section was that it would give the Minister of Justice the power to absorb international treaties into Israeli law by giving force to an unlimited number of judgments. Since the intention was that the Minister’s authority would not be limited to a particular judgment, it was not possible to focus the enforceability requirement such that it would apply to the judgment for which recognition is sought, and instead the enforceability requirement could refer only to the entire treaty (Mannheim, “Direct Recognition of Foreign Judgments,” supra, at pp. 707-708). The authority conferred upon the Minister was nevertheless limited to a power to recognize only those treaties that conform to Israeli law and which do not require Israel to recognize foreign judgments that are not enforceable. For some reason, which is not made clear in the explanatory notes to the Draft Law or in the Knesset Proceedings, the text of the amended Statute was changed such that the power to recognize foreign judgments was granted to the courts rather than to the Minister of Justice. However, the statutory language regarding the enforceability requirement remained in place and with it the section’s purpose – to limit the recognition of treaties that do not conform to Israeli law concerning the enforcement of judgments. In light of this, the correctness of an interpretation that views s. 11(a)(3) as presenting conditions regarding the treaty, rather than in connection to the judgment for which recognition is being sought, becomes clearer. (And see also Wasserstein Fassberg, Foreign Judgments in Israeli Law, supra, at p. 51: “When there is such a treaty, the conditions for recognition are the terms of the treaty. There is no substantive statutory condition for the recognition of such a judgment . . .”).

The s. 11(a) condition – “that are enforceable”

5.     Thus, what is the significance of the requirement that the undertaking given in the treaty with the foreign country apply only to foreign judgments that are enforceable in Israel? My view in this matter, like the view of my colleague, Justice Arbel, is that the phrase “that are enforceable” cannot be interpreted in a manner that strips it of all content and which mandates the acceptance of all treaties – even those that are in conflict with the requirements of the Foreign Judgments Law (as stated in para. 29 of Justice Arbel’s opinion). I also agree that the term should not be construed very narrowly – i.e., in a manner that requires that each treaty include every one of the conditions for enforcement pursuant to Israeli law, and that recognition of foreign judgments pursuant to a treaty will not be possible whenever the treaty diverges from the provisions of Israeli law, even if only in some minor way (as stated in para. 26 of my colleague’s opinion). This type of narrow interpretation would mean that the use of the term “enforceable” signifies that “it would seem that in order to create a situation in which the section cannot be utilized at all, it would be sufficient that the treaty directs the courts to recognize a judgment  in any case that does not fit into the narrow confines of the Enforcement Law” (S. Mannheim, “Direct Recognition of Foreign Judgments,” supra, at p. 707). Thus, according to the narrow interpretation, whenever an agreement makes it possible to recognize a judgment that cannot be enforced in Israel and which does not comply with all the conditions for enforcement pursuant to Israeli law – the foreign judgment may not be recognized. Thus, for example, in a case such as the instant one, in which the Convention leaves room for discretion in the event of a pending proceeding, and does not require that the foreign judgment not be enforced, the foreign judgments to which the Convention applies will not be recognized (even if the foreign judgment itself meets the statutory requirements, such as when there was no pending proceeding involving the same matter). This interpretation leads to a situation in which s. 11 cannot be used at all, and the application of the direct recognition track will lack even the most minimal content, and it is therefore inconsistent with the Statute’s objectives. (See also Wasserstein Fassberg, Foreign Judgments in Israeli Law, supra, for a description of the differences between the provisions of the various treaties that Israel has signed, and the provisions of the Enforcement Law, supra, at p. 49.)

6.     Another possible interpretation is that the statute requires that the provisions of the treaty be consistent with the norms for the enforcement of foreign judgments, such that the “enforceability” requirement is understood to disallow recognition of treaties that require the Israeli courts to deviate substantially from the conditions for enforcement prescribed by Israeli law. The purpose of the amendment was to enable the absorption of international treaties into Israeli law, with s. 11(a) intended to serve as the channel through which treaty provisions relating to the direct recognition of foreign judgments would be absorbed (see Wasserstein Fassberg, Foreign Judgments in Israeli Law, supra, at pp. 51-52). When this interpretation is used, the section effectively creates “red lines” that are intended to limit the government’s ability to approve treaties that do not conform to the values of Israeli law. This interpretation does not empty the Statute of all content, and it also conforms to both the Statute’s language and its objective. An interpretation that creates too many obstacles which prevent the absorption of treaties and judgments is not in harmony with the purpose of this legislation. It is therefore appropriate to understand s. 11(a)(3) such that it prohibits a court from recognizing a foreign judgment pursuant to a treaty that obligates Israel to recognize judgments that deviate substantially from the provisions of Israeli law.

According to this interpretation, the conditions set out in s. 11(a) apply only to the treaty pursuant to which the recognition of a foreign judgment is being sought, while the Statute does not add any conditions that apply to the foreign judgment itself. If the foreign judgment is covered by the provisions of the applicable treaty, and so long as that treaty does not require Israel to enforce foreign judgments that deviate substantially from those that are enforceable pursuant to Israeli law – the court will recognize the foreign judgment. However, this does not mean that the court cannot make its own determination regarding the foreign judgment or that it has no discretion regarding the recognition of the foreign judgment itself. The court remains the final arbiter with regard to whether the treaty conditions have been met. Israeli law becomes involved in the absorption of foreign judgments through the requirement that the judgment must be subject to a treaty that is consistent with Israeli law. The court’s ability to exercise discretion is also needed because the conditions established for enforcement pursuant to Israeli law – in light of which the court determines whether the treaty is deserving of recognition – themselves grant the court a certain range of discretion. The discretion that the court exercises when it decides whether to grant the remedy is derived from Israeli law, and is exercised in its spirit. In effect, it may be presumed that the legislature chose to confer upon the court the power to grant direct recognition of foreign judgments, rather than to empower the Minister of Justice to do so, precisely because of an understanding of the need for the exercise of judicial discretion regarding this matter.

From the general to the particular

7.     As stated, this case involves a foreign judgment rendered in a country with which the State of Israel does have a treaty, and in which it undertook to recognize foreign judgments of this type. Does the treaty apply only to foreign judgments that are enforceable in Israel? I believe that the answer to this question is affirmative. The Convention Between the Government of Israel and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland regarding the Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters, Israel Treaties 22, at p. 55 (hereinafter: “the Convention”), necessarily includes most of the conditions for the enforcement of foreign judgments that are included in the Foreign Judgments Law. The Convention provides that a judgment will not be recognized or enforced if it has been obtained through fraud (art. 3(2)(c) of the Convention and s. 6(a)(1) of the Statute); if a judgment was given by a body lacking authority to render it (art. 3(2)(b) of the Convention and ss. 6(a)(3) and 3(1) of the Statute); if the defendant has not been given a reasonable opportunity to defend against the action (art. 3(2)(b) of the Convention and s. 6(a)(2) of the Statute); or if the recognition of a judgment could harm  the security of the State or is inconsistent with public policy (art. 3(2)(d) of the Convention and ss. 3(3) and 7 of the Statute). However, the Convention does not contain any provision that is parallel to s. 5 of the Foreign Judgments Law, which establishes a limitations period of 5 years for the enforcement of foreign judgments. However, as stated, I believe that it is not necessary that there be an absolute identity between the terms of the relevant treaty and those of the Enforcement Law. The shortened limitations period is not part of the essential “core” of the Statute – and consequently its absence from the Convention should not be viewed as a deviation that prevents the absorption of the Convention within Israeli law.

8.     The Convention’s terms are different from those of the Statute with respect to an additional matter, which is relevant to our case – the fact that the Convention allows the court to exercise discretion concerning the recognition of a foreign judgment even if there is a pending proceeding: 

‘Where the court applied to is satisfied that, at the time when proceedings were instituted in the original court in the matter in dispute, proceedings as to the same matter between the same parties were pending before any court or tribunal of the country of the court applied to, the latter may refuse to recognise the judgment of the original court’ (art. 3(5) of the Convention. Emphasis added – E.R.).

In contrast, the Statute provides that if “[a]t the time that the action was brought in the court in the foreign country, another action regarding the same matter and between the same litigants was pending before an Israeli court or tribunal” – the foreign judgment will not be declared to be enforceable (s. 6(a)(5) of the Statute). Similarly, even in a case in which the foreign judgment is in conflict with a different judgment that has been rendered regarding the same matter and between the same litigants – the Convention allows the court to exercise judgment, while the Statute provides that in such a case the foreign judgment will not be recognized (art. 3(4) of the Convention and s. 6(a)(4) of the Statute). Does this mean that the Convention cannot be recognized at all because of its deviation from the “narrow confines” (in Mannheim’s words) of the Statute? As stated, my view is that the Convention should not be disqualified entirely on the ground that it allows for the exercise of discretion where the Statute establishes an inflexible rule, so long as it does not deviate from the core provisions of the Statute. The discretion that the Convention allows is consistent with the Statute’s provisions regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments, and is also consistent with its spirit. My colleague Justice Arbel, based on her own reasons, also reaches the conclusion that art. 3(5) does not conflict with s. 6(a)(5). In my view, and with the necessary changes, the core principles of the Statute are clearly reflected in the Convention, such that it is consistent with the Statute and includes all the red lines that are set forth in it.

9.     In light of this, the lower court retained the right to exercise discretion in terms of deciding whether to recognize the foreign judgment, even though it was rendered at a time that a parallel proceeding was pending in Israel. However, in the context of this exercise of discretion, the court must strive to achieve conformity between the Statute’s requirements for the enforcement of foreign judgments and its requirements for recognition. This conformity must express, inter alia, the assumption that forms the court’s starting point in deciding whether to recognize a foreign judgment that had been issued even when there was another parallel pending proceeding in Israel. The Statute provides, as stated, that a foreign judgment will not be enforced if, at the time the action was brought in the foreign court, there was a proceeding between the same litigants and regarding the same matter which was pending in Israel. Amos Shapira has noted the logic of this rule:

‘A foreign judgment that has been obtained under circumstances that indicate that a local proceeding was ignored or that an attempt was made to bypass it will not be given force in Israel. A litigant who makes light of a pending local proceeding or who maneuvers in order to avoid it has committed an abuse of legal proceedings and undermines the primary principles of fairness in the judicial process. The Israeli court will not assist such a party in implementing a judgment obtained abroad, so as not to assist in the commission of the misdeed’ (Shapira 2, at pp. 55-56,; see also Wasserstein Fassberg, Foreign Judgments in Israeli Law, supra, at pp. 22-23).

These remarks, made in connection with the enforcement of foreign judgments, apply as well to the issue of direct recognition. In either case, the issue is a possible impairment of the local court’s authority and an abuse of existing legal proceedings – whether through the enforcement of the foreign judgment or through its recognition in a manner that gives it effect under Israeli law. There is no difference, for this purpose, between a judgment that is enforceable and which a litigant seeks to enforce, and a judgment that does not involve any operative obligation and which a litigant seeks to have recognized directly in Israel. There are those who believe that there is no persuasive reason for distinguishing between the requirements for recognition and the requirements for enforcement, or that the distinction made by the Statute is not based on any substantive differences between the two tracks. (For further discussion, see Wasserstein Fassberg, Foreign Judgments in Israeli Law, supra, at pp. 153-154.)

There is thus a reasonable basis for applying the same logic both to the enforcement of foreign judgments and to their direct recognition, so that in the event of a “pending proceeding”, the court’s starting point should be the non-recognition of a foreign judgment. In order for a judgment to be recognized in such a situation, the court will need to be persuaded that there are sufficiently strong reasons that justify its recognition, even though a parallel proceeding was pending in an Israeli court at the time the foreign proceeding was initiated. The burden of proving the existence of such grounds is imposed on the party seeking the recognition of the judgment.

10.   It seems to me that under the circumstances of this case, there are good reasons not to recognize the foreign judgment. The respondent, using the name New Hampshire, initiated the proceeding in the foreign court only a short time after it was joined as a third party in the proceedings in Israel, where the named defendant was AIG – although it is clear that for the purposes of the proceedings before us, the companies are identical. On the other hand, when the respondent sought recognition in Israel of the foreign judgment that had been issued in its favor – it was willing to acknowledge the identity between the parties and sought to base a legal argument on that identity. The respondent’s actions indicate an attempt to avoid the litigation that was pending in Israel. The District Court, which reached a different conclusion, had reviewed the key theories that form the foundation for the recognition of foreign judgments, and considered those factors that relate to the need to bring an end to litigation and to increase the efficiency of such proceedings. These considerations arise whenever the recognition of a foreign judgment is needed, and they are independent of the particular facts of a specific dispute. The fact that the non-recognition of a foreign judgment means it will be necessary to conduct a new proceeding in order to adjudicate questions that have already been decided in the context of the foreign judgment is not sufficient to justify a sweeping recognition of the foreign judgment. In certain cases, there may be efficiency grounds that would actually justify the non-recognition of certain foreign judgments, when there is a need to reduce, from the beginning, the incentive to initiate additional proceedings in a foreign country.

An additional factor that the District Court took into consideration was the possibility that the res judicata rule would apply to the dispute. Such a possibility is, however, unlikely. Without a judicial act that recognized it, a foreign judgment has no validity in and of itself (see for example Anonymous v. Anonymous [1], at pp. 11-12; Shapira 2, at p. 509; CA 423/63 Rosenbaum v. Julie [7]). So long as the judgment that was rendered in the foreign country lacks force under Israeli law, no res judicata has arisen in any proceeding in Israel (see also Wasserstein Fassberg, “Finality for Foreign Judgments,” supra, at pp. 52-53). Thus, the question as to whether a res judicata has been created will depend on whether there is a foreign judgment that is valid in the State of Israel, and not vice versa. Additionally, the argument that in the case before us the English court was the appropriate forum for the adjudication of the matter does not, of itself, justify the initiation of proceedings in the foreign court while ignoring the Israeli proceeding. If a litigant believes that the State of Israel is not the proper forum for the adjudication of a matter, the litigant can make that argument within the context of the proceeding in the Israeli court that has already commenced its deliberation of the case – as a measure that respects that Israeli court’s authority.

Indeed, as I have noted, the range of possibilities for the recognition of foreign judgments can be broadened, and the narrow opening allowed for the absorption of such judgments within the current Statute is not enough. However, the expansion of this opening need not reach, specifically, those cases in which recognition makes it possible to bypass proceedings that are pending in Israel. Instead the framework needs to be expanded by making the Statute more accessible in situations in which there is some benefit achieved through the recognition of the foreign judgment, with the expansion being based on an overall view of Israel’s commercial and legal needs.

Therefore, and since I have not been persuaded of the presence of any grounds that justify recognition of the foreign judgment that is before us – I also believe, as does my colleague Justice Arbel, that the foreign judgment should not be recognized. I agree with the opinion of my colleague Justice Arbel, that the appeal should be allowed and the recognition of the foreign judgment should be withdrawn.

 

 

Justice E. Rubinstein

A.    I have read my colleagues’ comprehensive opinions, and I also agree with the result proposed by my colleague Justice Arbel and joined by my colleague Vice President Rivlin.

B.    Article 3(5) of the “Convention Between the Government of Israel and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Regarding the Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters”, Israel Treaties 22, at p. 55, provides as follows:

Where the court applied to is satisfied that, at the time when proceedings were instituted in the original court in the matter in dispute, proceedings as to the same matter between the same parties were pending before any court or tribunal of the country of the court applied to, the latter may refuse to recognise the judgment of the original court.

Since, at the time that the original action was brought (16 October 2001) in the English court (the “Original Court”), a third party notice had already been filed (on 20 September 2000) against AIG in the proceeding that was already pending in the Tel Aviv District Court (“the Court of Application”), the Convention grants the District Court discretion to determine that it will not recognize the foreign judgment. (The mechanism – “the pipeline” for the injection of the treaty terms into Israel’s internal law – is s. 11(a)(4) of the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law, 5718-1958 – hereinafter: “the Statute”; regarding the identity of the parties, see para. 34 of Justice Arbel’s opinion and para. 10 of the Vice President’s opinion.) The District Court (President Goren) described in detail – primarily in the legal sense – why, notwithstanding the court’s discretion to refuse the petition for recognition, such recognition was in fact appropriate (paras. 22-25). I nevertheless agree with the views of my colleagues (as stated in the paragraphs mentioned above).

C.    I would further note that the Convention grants discretion when there is a claim that there is a parallel pending proceeding, and it may be that there is a certain difference here between the provisions in the Convention and the provisions of s. 6(a)(5) of the Statute.  The Statute uses seemingly sweeping language – “will not be declared to be enforceable”:

‘A foreign judgment will not be declared to be enforceable if one of the following is proven to the court:

 . . .

(5)      at the time that the action was brought in the court in the foreign country, another action regarding the same matter and between the same litigants was pending before a court or tribunal in Israel.’

 (See para. 8 of the Vice President’s opinion; and in contrast, regarding the revocation of the discretion, see also LCA 1817/08 Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pronauron Biotechnologies, Inc. [8].) In my view, which I will expand upon below, to the extent that there is a difference between the language of s. 6(a)(5) and the provision in the Convention, it is the route that is outlined in the Convention (discretion) that should be followed when the subject is the recognition of the foreign judgment. Since the Convention grants discretion, the exercise of such discretion should also involve serious consideration of the good faith of the party requesting the recognition (compare CA 3924/08 Goldhar Corporate Finance Ltd. v. Klepierre S.A. [9]). Regarding our case, my colleague the Vice President responded to the matter of the respondent’s attempts to “avoid the litigation that was pending in Israel” (para. 10). These attempts would also appear to include the claims that the respondent raised in the context of the deliberation regarding service on the respondent’s counsel (CA (TA Dist.) 2137/02 AIG Europe (UK) Ltd. v. Israel Oil Refineries Limited [19]).

The impression received from the respondent’s overall behavior is that it did not act in pure good faith. I find this to be the case even though I am aware that the appellant – for its own reasons – did not appeal the English judgment, and it has become final.

D.    I therefore believe that the discretion that the Convention has conferred upon the court should have led it to reject the petition for recognition – and for this reason I concur in the result reached by my colleagues. Since both of them also responded in detail to the arguments regarding the interpretation of the Statute, I will deal with the matter only briefly – but I will first note that my main impression is that the existing legal situation is unsatisfactory and unclear, and that the time has come to re-organize the issue. I write this thirty years after the then student (and now Judge) Shaul Mannheim wrote his critical article “Direct Recognition of Foreign Judgments,” supra.  It appears that in the years since then, not only has there not been any legislative response to the difficulties that he noted, but these difficulties have in fact only increased, in light of this Court’s ruling in CA 970/93 Attorney General v. Agam [3].

From the general to the particular

E.    I have examined the question of the significance of the existence of a pending proceeding in Israel from the perspective of art. 3(5) of the Convention (cited above), and not from the perspective of s. 6(a)(5) of the Statute. This reflects an approach regarding the interpretation of s. 11(a) of the Statute, one which is somewhat different from that of my colleagues, and I will now discuss it briefly. Section 11 of the Statute provides as follows:   

11. (a)  An Israeli court or tribunal will recognize a foreign judgment regarding which the following conditions have been met:

(1)  A treaty with a foreign country applies to it;

(2)  Israel has undertaken, in that treaty, to recognize foreign judgments of its type;

(3)  The undertaking only applies to foreign judgments that are enforceable pursuant to Israeli law;

(4)  The judgment satisfies all the conditions in the treaty.

 (b) By way of a deliberation concerning a matter within its jurisdiction and for the purpose of the main matter, a court or tribunal in Israel may recognize a foreign judgment, even if sub-section (a) does not apply to it, if the court or tribunal has found that it is right and just to do so.

(c)  The provisions of s. 6(b) and (c) will apply in proceedings involving the recognition of a foreign judgment pursuant to this section.

As to the dispute between my colleagues – concerning the question or whether the conditions of s. 11(a)(3) are to be applied to the judgment for which recognition is being sought or to the treaty by virtue of which the recognition is being sought – I share the view of my colleague the Vice President. I also believe that the condition that the “undertaking only applies to foreign judgments that are enforceable pursuant to Israeli law” requires that a determination be made as to whether the treaty (“the undertaking”) does indeed apply only to foreign judgments that are enforceable in Israel; and does not require a determination as to whether the judgment for which recognition is sought meets these conditions (see the Vice President’s reasoning in para. 4 of his opinion; Mannheim, “Direct Recognition of Foreign Judgments,” supra, at p. 707). Under these specific circumstances, and for the purpose of the case before us, I also find that the Convention which is the basis of this proceeding complies with these conditions.

F.     For these reasons, in my view, it is not necessary to determine whether the appellant has a good defense pursuant to s. 6(a)(5) of the Statute. The court is obliged (pursuant to s. 11(a)(4) of the Statute) to examine whether “it [the judgment for which recognition is sought – E.R.] satisfies all the conditions in the treaty”. The reference is to the conditions in the treaty – not the conditions in the Statute. “The conditions for recognition will be established in each case in accordance with the treaty between Israel and the country in which the judgment was issued” (Wasserstein Fassberg, Foreign Judgments in Israeli Law, supra, at p. 52). It appears that the treaty is to be examined according to the tests established in the Statute, and the judgment is to be examined according to the tests established in the treaty.

G.    Thus, in cases in which the treaty confers discretion upon the Court of Application, and in which – according to the language of the treaty and in accordance with its objective – there are a number of possible legitimate results, it is appropriate, as my colleague the Vice President wrote, to “strive to achieve conformity between the Statute’s requirements regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments and its requirements for recognition” (para. 9 of the Vice President’s opinion). A common sense view and the judicial aspiration for the most harmonious possible interpretation would require this. However, as a rule, when the subject is a document signed by two countries whose internal laws differ on this matter, I believe that the signatory countries’ main commitment is to an interpretation of the treaty which is in accordance with that document’s own language – and only secondarily to its conformity with their own internal legal systems. “So far as interpretation of the treaty is concerned, it would appear that significant weight should be attached to international uniformity and a desire for harmony with outcomes that are reached in foreign countries” (CA 7833/06 Pamesa Ceramica v. Yisrael Mendelson Engineering Technical Supply Ltd., [10] ). There is good reason, I believe, and certainly within the framework of an international business system, to maintain harmony between different countries in terms of the interpretation to be given to the same treaty – both with respect to legal certainty and out of a duty of fairness to the various “players” who should not be compelled to discover that when they move from country to country, they will be faced with a differing interpretation of the same language. This is certainly the case in terms of a multilateral treaty, but it is also true with respect to a bilateral treaty, as is the case here.

H.    As in Israel, there is not much English case law dealing with the Convention that is the subject of this proceeding (although see, for example, Tuvyahu v. Swigi 1997] EWCA Civ. 965 [20]). However, in the spirit of the above discussion, as there are differences between Israel’s Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law and its principles, on the one hand, and the parallel English statute (the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1993), on the other hand, an interpretation that is directed only at conformity with the provisions of the internal law will naturally lead to two different interpretations in the two countries; this is an utterly undesirable result with respect to an international treaty. An example of one of the differences between the two statutes would be in relation to the ability to enforce a non-final judgment. Section 3(2) of Israel’s Statute provides as follows:

‘An Israeli court may declare that a foreign judgment is enforceable if it finds that the following conditions have been met with regard to it . . . (2) the judgment is not subject to appeal.’

Section 3 of the English statute provides the following:

‘For the purposes of this section, a judgment shall be deemed to be final and conclusive notwithstanding that an appeal may be pending against it, or that it may still be subject to appeal, in the country of the original court.’

(Regarding the differences between the English law and the Israeli law concerning this matter, see also Ben Dayan v. IDS International [6], at p. 105; Shapira 1, supra, at pp. 527-528.) In a context which is very similar to ours (the differences in language between s. 6(a)(4) of the Statute and the provisions of 5(1)(6) of the treaty with the Federal Republic of Germany), Justice M. Cheshin wrote the following:

‘The rule of interpretation is indeed that a statute and a treaty should be conformed with each other; that the two should work together and should not conflict with each other (see A. Barak, Legal Interpretation, supra, at p. 575), but a peace-building bridge can only be built between two sides that are close to each other – not between two elements between which there is a great divide’ (CA 1137/93 Ashkar v. Hymes [11], at p. 659).

Foreign judgments that are enforceable pursuant to Israeli law

I.     As stated above, I agree with my colleague the Vice President that the statutory language indicates that the requirement contained in s. 11(a)(3) – “the undertaking applies only to foreign judgments that are enforceable pursuant to Israeli law” – refers to the treaty (“the undertaking”) and not to the specific judgment for which recognition is sought. However, I am not certain that the only possible interpretation of the term foreign judgments that are enforceable pursuant to Israeli lawis the intermediate interpretation that my two colleagues have proposed.

J.     I myself would propose that the phrase (in s. 11(a)(3)) “foreign judgments that are enforceable pursuant to Israeli law” (emphasis added – E.R.) should be read as an internal reference to s. 3 of the Statute, which is captioned “Conditions for Enforcement”; the reference should possibly even be only to the specific condition contained in s. 3(3) that “the obligation in the judgment is enforceable pursuant to the laws for the enforcement of judgments in Israel”. This would be in the spirit of the interpretation given for that condition in the explanatory note to the Draft Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Amendment) Law 5734-1974:

[i]f the Israeli law does not have the tools that make it possible to enforce the foreign judgment or to enforce it in some other manner, such as through specific performance of a contract for personal service (Draft Laws, 1974 – at p. 172).

In any event, I believe that this is not a reference to s. 6 of the Statute, which (according to its caption) deals with “Defenses Against Enforcement”. In my view, the conditions are to be understood as constituting one matter, and the defenses are deemed to be a different matter. (Regarding the differences between conditions and defenses – primarily in terms of burdens of proof – see CA 1268/07 Greenberg v. Bamira [12], at para. 13; CA 10854/07 Pickholtz v. Sohachesky [13].)

K.    In terms of interpretation, a strong indication that the expression “enforceable pursuant to the law of Israel” in s. 11(a)(3) does not refer to the defenses listed in s. 6 of the Statute can be found, in my view, in s. 11(c):

  (c)   The provisions of s. 6(b) and (c) will apply in proceedings involving the recognition of a foreign judgment pursuant to this section.

In my view, this section, which also applies to direct recognition pursuant to s. 11(a) (see M. Shava, Direct Conversion of a Foreign Judgment, supra, at p. 40, n. 20), indicates two things: (1) if not for its express provision, none of the conditions of s. 6 would apply to proceedings pursuant to s. 11 (nor would they apply through s. 11(a)(3)); and (2) that only the “provisions of s. 6(b) and (c)” apply to proceedings pursuant to s. 11. Furthermore, I believe that it cannot be said that the legislature – which, according to my colleague the Vice President sought to limit the power of the executive branch to enter into certain agreements – would have reserved for that branch the discretion to determine the “threshold conditions or set of red lines” (per Justice Arbel, in para. 30 of her opinion), or to decide among the various interpretations that my colleagues have discussed.

L.    A review of the legislative history of the Foreign Judgments Law also indicates that the legislature’s tendency had been to enable the government to enter into treaties for the recognition of foreign judgments with greater ease – and not to increase the difficulties involved by adopting threshold requirements from Israel’s internal law (see the explanatory notes to the Draft Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Amendment) Law 5734-1974, Draft Laws, supra at p. 172; the explanatory notes to the Draft Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Amendment No. 2) Law 5737-1977, Draft Laws 246; C. Goldwater, “Amendments to the Foreign Judgments Enforcement Law”, 10 Isr. L. Rev. 247 (1975), at p. 248). The question may be asked as to why a respondent should not, in the context of a petition for the recognition of a foreign judgment, benefit from the same defenses that a respondent can rely upon in a petition for enforcement. The answer is that a respondent does in fact benefit from those particular defenses (or from similar defenses) that the State saw fit to include in the framework of the treaties that it has signed. In order to make matters clear, I note that some variation of the “pending proceeding” defense is included in all four treaties that Israel has signed (see, in addition to the article which is the subject of this case: art. 5(3) of the treaty with Austria, (Israel Treaties 21, at p. 149); s. 5(1)(5) of the Schedule to the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Regulations (Treaty with The Federal Republic of Germany), 5741-1981; art. 4(e)(1) of the treaty with Spain (Israel Treaties 30, at p. 714)).

Pending proceedings and public policy

M.   I would like to comment further on the matter of public policy. The current proceeding focuses on the nature of the exception dealing with “pending proceedings” (lis alibi pendens) – an argument which, in appropriate circumstances, will enable a stay of proceedings even in a situation in which the two proceedings are being conducted within the same internal legal system. (For a survey, see U. Goren, Issues in Civil Procedure (10th ed., 2009), at pp. 116-117.) The Convention recognizes another exception dealing with cases that conflict with public policy – although there it is combined with the exception dealing with cases that have an adverse impact on “the sovereignty or security of the State” (art. 3(2)(d)); and in the Statute, it is combined with language referring to the requirement that “the obligation in the judgment is enforceable pursuant to the laws for the enforcement of judgments in Israel” (s. 3(3); the exception relating to cases having an adverse impact on sovereignty or security has been given a separate section, s. 7). The fact that the exception dealing with public policy can be situated in different contexts – together with matters affecting the security of the State (as in the Convention), or together with the condition involving conformity with the internal law (as in the Statute) – may indicate that there is a certain similarity in principle between the concept of public policy and the other exceptions to enforcement and recognition – including, in my view, the exception dealing with “a pending proceeding”.

N.    Indeed, Israel’s internal law provides a variety of reasons for a stay of a proceeding based on “a pending proceeding”. Some of these are clearly utilitarian – such as the concept of avoiding additional burdens for litigants and for the legal system (see U.  Goren, Issues in Civil Procedure, supra, at p. 116; LCA 346/06 Hazan v. Club Inn Eilat Holdings Ltd. [14], at para. 4); some of them are closer in their nature to the public policy concept – such as the idea of mutual respect among different courts (LCA 1674/09 Lechter v. Derek Boateng [15], at para. 22; CA 1327/01 Ephrayim v. Elan [16], at pp. 781-782), and the prevention of conflicting rulings (LCA 2733/07 Amiron S. T. L. Finance and Investment Ltd. v. Wallach [17]). Without blurring the practical differences between the various exceptions, it appears that from a preliminary and distant perspective, there could be a certain amount of interfacing between the concepts. Furthermore, with regard to the same issue within the internal legal system, when a court needs to rule on a “pending proceeding” argument, it should weigh “good faith utilization of a right” considerations (S. Levin Law of Civil Procedure – Introduction and Basic Principles (2nd ed., 2008), at p. 124). The ideational proximity to the super-principle of public policy (regarding this matter, see also Teva v. Pronauron [8]), and the importance attributed to good faith should be a court’s guiding light when it exercises the discretion conferred upon it by the Convention. For this reason I believe that the discretion granted by the Convention should have led to the result reached by my two colleagues. As a side point, I note that in Jewish law, the principle of public policy is referred to by a global, perhaps universal and elegant term – ‘tikkun olam’ [repairing the world] – as in, for example “Hillel the elder enacted the pruzbul [a deed deposited with the rabbinical court to which the monetary sabbatical year does not apply– E.R] due to a concern for tikkun olam” (Mishna Gittin, Chapter 4, Mishna 3).

Conclusion

O.    As stated above, I believe that s. 11(a)(3) presents minimalist threshold requirements, the purpose of which is to restrict the State in terms of its ability to enter into international treaties, and it does not obligate the courts to examine whether the respondent in the petition for a specific recognition has a good defense pursuant to s. 6 of the Statute (while, of course, defense claims based on treaty provisions are examined pursuant to s. 11(a)(4)). I do not wish to put a final finish on this matter, since it is not necessary to decide it in order to decide the issue presented by the current case.  Furthermore, the approach that I am proposing is likely to give rise to various difficulties, since even if it is possible to determine that those who drafted the Convention had made an effort to conform it to the threshold requirements of Israeli law, I am not certain that this objective was achieved in full (with regard to s. 3(3) of the Statute, in particular). It may be that from this perspective, my colleague Justice Arbel’s proposal is a desirable one, but in my view it is difficult to reconcile it with the statutory language – and this may be the foundation for a new arrangement. I therefore agree with the result reached by my two colleagues – i.e., that the appeal should be allowed. Going beyond what is needed, as stated, I also agree with the Vice President’s position that the requirement presented in 11(a)(3) refers to the relevant treaty and not to the judgment for which recognition is sought, but I would give this section a narrower interpretation than is given to it by my colleague.

P.     And after all this has been stated, there is a much greater practical difficulty, which relates to the fact that the four existing treaties – even if they do meet the requirements stipulated in the Statute – provide only a partial solution to the practical need for the recognition of foreign judgments from all over the world. At present, only four treaties have been signed, and the last of them was signed twenty years ago (although it should be noted that the Convention which is the subject of this case was updated in the early part of the last decade); this is despite the fact that s. 11 was enacted in 1977 and the fact that since that time, many additional states have established diplomatic relations with Israel. Not only do these four treaties provide solutions for only four countries, they do so only partially – because they do not apply to all types of judgments. It is clear that in light of the real need (which may be presumed to exist, at least, in light of the phenomenon of globalization) for a mechanism that allows for the recognition of foreign judgments (especially for the recognition of judgments in rem), and in light of the restrictive rule established in Attorney General v. Agam [3], there is a need to re-think the regulation of this area, since the 1977 amendment does not appear to have succeeded. I agree with the views of my colleagues regarding this matter as well.

 

Appeal allowed.

8 Tevet 5771

15 December 2010

 

 

 

Subscribe to RSS - Insurance Contract