How a UK Manufacturer Cut an Israeli Agent's NIS 1.9M Claim to NIS 540,000

Result: A NIS 1,900,000 agency claim settled for NIS 540,000 inclusive of VAT, with mutual releases · Timeline: 11 months · Challenge: Nine-year Israeli agency ended by a 30-day email · Authority: Tel Aviv Magistrates' Court · Financial Impact: NIS 1,360,000 of the claim defeated

Background

The client is a family-owned manufacturer near Sheffield with about 90 employees, making filtration equipment for hospitals and food producers. Israel had been a useful market since 2016, worked through a one-man company in Herzliya whose owner knew every biomedical engineer in the country. The arrangement was simple and, on the English side, entirely unremarkable: 8 per cent commission on shipped orders, a contract drafted by the company's Sheffield solicitors in 2016, English law, exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.

In June 2025 the company decided to serve Israel through a regional distributor instead. The managing director sent a polite email thanking the agent for nine years and giving 30 days' notice, which is what the 2016 contract said he could do. Eleven weeks later a claim arrived at the company's registered office in Yorkshire, in Hebrew, with an English summary, seeking NIS 1,900,000. Nobody in Sheffield had heard of the Agency Contract (Commercial Agent and Principal) Law 5772-2012, and the contract they were relying on could not save them from it.

The Challenge

The 2012 Law changed the position of Israeli sales agents in a way foreign principals still discover only when they terminate one. It came into force on 27 April 2012 and gives a commercial agent two protections that do not depend on what the contract says.

The first is notice. For an open-ended agency, Section 3 sets a sliding scale by length of relationship: two weeks during the first six months, one month from the seventh month to the end of the first year, two months in the second year, three months in the third, four in the fourth, five in the fifth, and six months from the sixth year onwards. This agency had run for nine years and three months. The notice owed was six months and the notice given was 30 days, sent by email. That head of claim was lost before we opened the file.

The second is compensation, and it is the one that produces the large numbers. Section 4 entitles the agent to compensation on termination where the relationship lasted at least a year, where the agent brought the principal new customers or materially increased the volume of business with existing ones, and where the principal goes on deriving benefit from that business after the agency ends. The amount is the agent's average monthly profit multiplied by the number of years the agency ran, capped at twelve months' average profit, with the average taken over the three years before termination or over the whole relationship if it was shorter.

Then comes the provision that makes the English law clause largely decorative. Section 6 provides that the parties may not contract out of the Law to the agent's detriment. An agency performed entirely in Israel, by an Israeli agent, selling to Israeli hospitals, is not going to escape Israeli mandatory protection because a solicitor in Sheffield wrote "this agreement shall be governed by the laws of England and Wales" in 2016. We advised the board on day one to treat the clause as a bargaining chip rather than a defence, which is not what they wanted to hear.

In Practice: Under Section 4 of the Agency Contract (Commercial Agent and Principal) Law 5772-2012, compensation equals the agent's average monthly profit multiplied by the number of years of the agency, capped at twelve months' profit, averaged over the three years before termination. On this file the agent's own figures produced NIS 39,000 a month and nine years, so NIS 351,000 before anything else was added. The claim went to the Tel Aviv Magistrates' Court, which under Section 51(a)(2) of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version] 5744-1984 hears civil claims up to NIS 2.5 million, and the agent paid roughly NIS 23,750 to file, being half of the 2.5 per cent ad valorem court fee on a NIS 1.9 million claim.

What We Did

The first working session was about characterisation, because the Law protects an agent and says nothing about a distributor. A commercial agent locates customers and brings about contracts between the principal and those customers. Someone who buys stock on his own account, takes the credit risk and resells at his own margin is doing something else, and his protection comes from the judge-made requirement to give reasonable notice before terminating an open-ended commercial relationship, not from Section 4.

Nine years of invoices told a mixed story. Until 2021 the Herzliya company was a pure agent on all product lines. From 2021 it began buying two consumable lines outright, warehousing them near Petah Tikva and reselling to clinics at its own prices. We reconstructed the split from the company's own export ledgers and the agent's Israeli VAT filings, and it came to about 34 per cent of the last three years' turnover sitting outside the statutory regime altogether. That did not extinguish the claim. It moved a third of it onto ground where the remedy is reasonable notice, and where nine years of dealing supports something in the range of six to nine months rather than a multiplier of nine.

Second, we attacked the profit base rather than the formula. Section 4 works on profit, not on gross commission, and agents almost always plead the two as if they were the same. The claim used NIS 47,000 a month of gross commission and deducted almost nothing. We instructed an Israeli forensic accountant to reconstruct the agent's actual costs from his own filed returns: a leased vehicle, a part-time assistant, exhibition costs at two trade fairs a year, and the warehousing he had taken on for the distribution lines. The defensible average monthly profit came out at NIS 26,000, which took the Section 4 figure on the agency lines from NIS 351,000 to NIS 234,000.

Third, we tested the third statutory condition, which is continuing benefit to the principal. Seventy-one per cent of the final three years' turnover came from three hospital groups that had been buying the company's equipment before the agency began, through tenders published by the buying authorities. Where the principal wins a public tender on price and specification after the agent has gone, the benefit is harder to attribute to the agent's work. We conceded the point on the private clinics, which the agent genuinely had built, and contested it on the hospital groups.

Service was its own skirmish. The agent's lawyer had served the claim on the newly appointed Israeli distributor, relying on Regulation 163(c) of the Civil Procedure Regulations 5779-2018, which permits service on a foreign defendant through its representative in Israel. We objected that an independent reseller who buys and resells on its own account is not the foreign company's representative, and the objection was well founded, but we were candid with the board about what it bought them. It bought about seven weeks. A court that refuses service by that route will usually give the claimant permission to serve out of the jurisdiction instead.

The one piece of leverage that genuinely moved the negotiation was enforcement, and it turned on where the claim had been filed. Under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Israel) Order 1971, Part I of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 extends to judgments of the Israeli superior courts, and Article 3 of that Order lists them: the Supreme Court, the District Courts and the religious courts. The Magistrates' Court is not on the list. An Israeli Magistrates' Court judgment against a Yorkshire company therefore cannot simply be registered in the High Court. The agent would have had to bring a fresh common law action in England on the judgment debt, at his own cost, with a solicitor he did not have. That is friction rather than immunity, and we said so in the same sentence we said it to the other side, but friction is what settles cases.

In Practice: Section 6 of the Agency Contract Law 5772-2012 prohibits contracting out to the agent's detriment, so an English governing law clause does not remove Section 3 notice or Section 4 compensation from an agency performed in Israel. Enforcement runs the other way: the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Israel) Order 1971 extends Part I of the UK's Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 only to the courts listed in Article 3, being the Supreme Court, the District Courts and the religious courts, with a six-year window under Article 8(3) of the underlying Convention. A NIS 540,000 Magistrates' Court judgment is outside that route entirely.

Two risks shaped how hard we were willing to push, and both sat outside the pleadings.

The first was employment. An agent who works exclusively for one principal, takes instructions on pricing and reports weekly can be characterised by the Israeli Labour Court as an employee no matter what the invoices say, and the exposure then becomes severance pay, accrued holiday, pension contributions and social charges reaching back years, frequently past the twelve-month cap the agency Law imposes. The Herzliya company had one other client, which helped, but the correspondence had a tone that a Labour Court judge would have found familiar. Our guide to contractor and employee classification for foreign companies in Israel sets out the tests that apply.

The second was tax. The agent's statement of claim described him as having run the company's Israeli operation, held its stock and managed its customers. Read by the Israel Tax Authority rather than by a judge, that is a description of a dependent agent permanent establishment under Article 5 of the UK and Israel double taxation convention, which would put attributed profits into the Israeli corporate tax net at 23 per cent for years that are still open. Orders had in fact always been accepted in Sheffield and the agent had never held authority to conclude contracts, which is what kept the company outside it. We were not eager to have that argued at length on a public court file.

The Outcome

The case settled at mediation in the eleventh month for NIS 540,000, inclusive of Israeli VAT, payable in three instalments over six months against mutual releases and a two-year non-solicitation covenant on the three hospital groups.

The VAT point is worth naming because it caught the finance director by surprise. Services supplied to a foreign resident can be zero-rated under Section 30(a)(5) of the Value Added Tax Law 5736-1975, but the exemption is lost where the service also serves an Israeli resident, and an agent selling to Israeli hospitals is exposed on exactly that condition. Rather than take the risk of a later assessment landing on the payer, we fixed the settlement as a VAT-inclusive figure and left the characterisation with the agent and his accountant. At 18 per cent that allocation was worth about NIS 82,000, and it was cheaper to concede in the number than to litigate.

Set against the NIS 1,900,000 claimed, the company paid 28 per cent and kept the Israeli market through its new distributor without an injunction, a public judgment or a tax file. Set against what it would have paid by simply honouring Section 3, the six months of notice it never gave, the settlement cost roughly NIS 380,000 more than doing it correctly would have. That arithmetic is the reason we now review the termination clause of every Israeli agency agreement a foreign client sends us before the client sends the email, not after.

Key Takeaways

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

1. An English or American governing law clause will not displace the Israeli Agency Contract Law 5772-2012. Section 6 makes notice and compensation mandatory in the agent's favour, so the contract sets the commercial terms and the statute sets the exit price.
2. Count the notice before sending the email. Section 3 owes six months from the sixth year of the relationship onward, and a foreign principal who gives 30 days has conceded five months of profit before the argument starts.
3. Compensation is calculated on profit, not on commission. Reconstructing the agent's real costs from his own Israeli VAT and income tax filings is usually worth a third of the claim and takes a forensic accountant three to four weeks.
4. Check whether your agent is actually a distributor. Buying stock on his own account and reselling at his own margin takes those product lines outside the statutory compensation regime and into the softer territory of reasonable notice.
5. Where the claim is filed changes what a judgment is worth. Israeli Magistrates' Court judgments fall outside the 1971 Order that makes Israeli superior court judgments registrable in the English High Court, which is a real factor in what a claimant will accept.

---

Facing a Similar Situation?

If you sell into Israel through a local agent and you are thinking about restructuring, the cheapest hour you will spend is the one before the notice goes out, when the notice period, the compensation base and the agent's employment risk can still be managed together. Once the termination is sent, all three are fixed.

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