How French Owners Ended an Israeli Court Case Without Flying In

Result: Net judgment of NIS 96,000 plus NIS 12,000 costs to the owners, with neither of them entering Israel · Timeline: 11 months · Challenge: Cross-examination required two trips from Lyon · Authority: Netanya Magistrates Court · Financial Impact: NIS 108,000 recovered, roughly NIS 30,000 in travel and hearing costs avoided

Background

A couple in Lyon have owned a three-room apartment near the seafront in Netanya since 2016. They use it for about six weeks a year and let it to short-stay tenants the rest of the time. In 2024 they signed a NIS 310,000 contract with an Israeli renovation contractor to reconfigure the kitchen and both bathrooms, supervising the work by video call and through a cousin who lives twenty minutes away. The contractor stopped at roughly 70% of the works, invoiced for the balance, and left the apartment unlettable. When the couple refused to pay, he sued them in the Netanya Magistrates Court for NIS 148,000. Neither of them speaks Hebrew, and neither had ever been inside an Israeli courtroom.

The Challenge

We filed a defence and a counterclaim for NIS 265,000 covering the cost of completion, the defects, and eleven months of lost rent. The court appointed an expert under Regulation 88 of the Civil Procedure Regulations 5779-2018, which was the right move on the merits: the expert inspected the apartment, priced the incomplete and defective work at NIS 214,000, and confirmed that the NIS 148,000 balance had indeed never been paid. On paper the couple were winning.

The procedure was the problem, not the evidence. An Israeli civil trial on a disputed contract runs on affidavit evidence tested by cross-examination, and the affidavits here were the couple's own. Both would have had to attend in person, through a Hebrew interpreter, on dates set by the court rather than by them, and the second of the two hearing days had already been listed fourteen months out. Two return trips from Lyon, accommodation, interpretation, and the second half of the court fee came to roughly NIS 30,000 against a realistic recovery in the region of NIS 100,000. Non-residents lose meritorious Israeli cases to that arithmetic more often than they lose them on the law.

Two other routes were considered and set aside. Evidence by video link is available in Israeli civil proceedings, but it is granted on application rather than as of right, the court weighs the reason the witness cannot attend against the prejudice to the other side, and a party who is simply resident abroad and comfortable is a weaker applicant than one who is ill or barred from travel. It also solves only half the problem, since the couple would still have been cross-examined, in Hebrew, on two separate listed days. Mediation was the second option, and the parties had already sat through the preliminary information and coordination meeting that Israeli civil procedure requires before a case proceeds. It produced an offer of NIS 25,000, which was not a settlement so much as a test of how much the distance was worth to the other side.

In Practice: Under Regulation 88 of the Civil Procedure Regulations 5779-2018 the court appointed a single expert, who is required to deliver an opinion within 60 days of learning of the appointment; his valuation of the defective and incomplete works at NIS 214,000 became the factual spine of the case. Court fees in the Netanya Magistrates Court run at 2.5% of the sum claimed under the Courts Regulations (Fees) 5767-2007, so the NIS 265,000 counterclaim carried about NIS 6,625, of which half fell due on filing and the balance up to 20 days before the hearing date under Regulation 6.

What We Did

We proposed Section 79A of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version] 5744-1984, and the contractor's lawyer accepted within a week. The provision is short and does a great deal of work: a court hearing a civil matter may, with the consent of the parties, decide the matter before it, in whole or in part, by way of compromise. Consent is the whole of it. The court cannot impose the route, and once both sides have agreed, the judge decides on the material already in the file without a full evidentiary hearing, without cross-examination, and without the detailed reasoning a conventional judgment carries. The trade the parties make is certainty and speed against a reasoned decision and a realistic right of appeal, because a compromise judgment is close to unappealable in practice.

The mechanism only protects a client who frames it properly, and framing means brackets. We agreed in writing that the judge would rule within a floor of NIS 40,000 and a ceiling of NIS 130,000 net in the owners' favour, on the expert report, the contract, the payment records, and written summations from each side. That single sentence converted an open-ended trial with a worst case of paying NIS 148,000 into a defined outcome in which the couple's downside was a NIS 40,000 recovery. We also agreed that the expert would answer written clarification questions from both sides before summations went in, so the report that would carry the decision had been tested in writing rather than left unchallenged.

Everything after that ran from Lyon. Their power of attorney was signed before a notary in Lyon and apostilled by the notarial chamber, which has issued French apostilles free of charge since 1 May 2025 and returned it in four working days. The consent to a Section 79A determination was filed as a joint procedural application, signed by both lawyers. Summations were exchanged in Hebrew, and we translated each side's document for the clients before it went in rather than after. The court file was inspected online. No one flew anywhere.

In Practice: Section 79A of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version] 5744-1984 allows a civil court, with the consent of the parties, to give judgment by way of compromise on the material before it, without a full evidentiary hearing and without full reasons. The parties fixed a floor of NIS 40,000 and a ceiling of NIS 130,000, and the Netanya Magistrates Court delivered judgment five weeks after summations closed. Because the case ended in a compromise before the third pre-trial session, the balance of the fee paid on the counterclaim was refunded under the refund provision in Regulation 15 of the Courts Regulations (Fees) 5767-2007, less the fixed deduction.

The Outcome

The judgment came eleven months after the counterclaim was filed. The court set off the unpaid balance against the expert's valuation and awarded the owners NIS 96,000 net, with NIS 12,000 in costs, in a decision running to a page and a half. The contractor paid within the thirty days the judgment allowed. Against the alternative timetable, the couple recovered a comparable sum roughly a year earlier, avoided about NIS 30,000 in travel, interpretation and hearing costs, and never gave evidence.

The scale of the dispute is worth naming, because it explains why the small claims route was closed to them. The Israeli small claims ceiling stood at NIS 39,900 in January 2026, far below both the claim and the counterclaim here, so the case belonged in the Magistrates Court with everything that implies for a litigant who lives abroad. Our guide to the Israeli small claims court for non-residents sets out where that line falls and what changes once a dispute crosses it.

Key Takeaways

What this case illustrates for non-residents in similar situations:

1. Raise Section 79A early, before the second half of the court fee falls due and before hearing dates are listed. Its value to a non-resident is almost entirely in the hearings it removes, and that value shrinks as the case matures.
2. Never consent to a compromise judgment without an agreed floor and ceiling. The court's discretion inside those brackets is wide and the decision will not be reasoned, so the brackets are the only real protection a party abroad retains.
3. Get the court-appointed expert appointed first. A Regulation 88 opinion gives the judge an independent factual basis, which is exactly what makes a decision without live evidence workable, and it is far harder to displace than a report commissioned by a party.
4. Use written clarification questions rather than saving your challenges for cross-examination. Under this route there is no cross-examination, so anything not put to the expert in writing is never put at all.
5. Price the litigation in flights, not only in fees. Two return trips, an interpreter and lost working days routinely exceed the legal costs of an Israeli Magistrates Court claim, and a procedural choice that removes them changes the economics of the whole dispute.

---

Facing a Similar Situation?

If you are being sued in Israel, or need to sue there, and the obstacle is that you live somewhere else, the question worth asking first is not who is right but which procedure lets you prove it without boarding a plane. We assess whether a compromise judgment, a court-appointed expert, or evidence by video link fits your case, and we set the brackets before consent is given rather than after.

Contact us for a confidential consultation about your Israeli legal matter.