רע"א 3982/19

תקציר

## Legal Analysis (English) This analysis focuses on the legal principles and procedural innovations demonstrated in the Supreme Court decision (RAA 3982/19), presided over by Justice N. Solberg. ### 1. The Principle of Finality of Procedural Choice (Waiver and Estoppel) The central legal principle underpinning this decision is the finality and binding nature of a litigant’s voluntary procedural choice. The Applicants, having initially filed a claim for invasion of privacy, appealed its dismissal to the District Court. Crucially, during the appellate hearing, they chose to withdraw their appeal following a recommendation by the District Court. The Supreme Court explicitly rejects the Applicants’ attempt to revisit the matter, stating: "Once they decided to withdraw the appeal, and a judgment was given, they are no longer entitled to retract their withdrawal, and to ask for a 'new round' (*'sibuv nosaf'*)." This principle serves several vital functions: a. **Judicial Efficiency:** It prevents the abuse of the appellate system by ensuring that procedural decisions made by parties in the presence of the court are conclusive. b. **Procedural Estoppel:** It holds parties accountable for their actions, preventing them from using the court system to hedge their bets—withdrawing when faced with an unfavorable judicial inclination, and then appealing the withdrawal itself. ### 2. The Doctrine of the "Third Instance" Barrier (*Galgal Shlishi*) The decision strongly reinforces the restrictive doctrine governing requests for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (the third instance). Such leave is granted only in exceptional circumstances, typically when the case raises fundamental, systemic, or novel legal questions that transcend the immediate dispute between the parties. The Applicants attempted to frame their case as raising "fundamental questions" (*she'elot ikroniyot*). However, the Supreme Court implicitly ruled that the procedural history—a voluntary withdrawal following a court recommendation—negates any claim that the case warrants a third hearing. The court emphasizes that the Applicants cannot seek a "new round; certainly not in a 'third instance' (*galgal shlishi*)." This demonstrates the court’s commitment to maintaining the Supreme Court’s function as a policy-setting body rather than a court of error correction for procedural choices. ### 3. Legal Innovation: Validation of Judicial Recommendation and Settlement Encouragement The case implicitly validates the common judicial practice of offering recommendations or suggestions to parties during a hearing to encourage settlement or withdrawal. The Applicants argued that the District Court’s judgment was given "without discussion and without reasoning" (*lelo diyun ve’lelo hanmaka*), implying a procedural flaw. The Supreme Court’s response clarifies the legal status of such a procedure: the District Court held a hearing, "offered what it offered," and the Applicants "considered and accepted" (*savru ve’kiblu*). The court confirms that the Applicants were "entitled not to do so." By accepting the recommendation and withdrawing the appeal, the Applicants effectively waived their right to a reasoned judgment on the merits of the appeal. The court treats the resulting judgment as a final, consensual outcome based on the parties' procedural choice, not a flawed judgment on the merits. This procedural innovation allows lower courts to manage dockets efficiently while ensuring parties retain the ultimate choice to proceed to a full, reasoned judgment. *** ## סיכום (Summary in Hebrew) **רע"א 3982/19 – לוי ואח' נ' כיכר השבת בע"מ** **רקע:** המבקשים הגישו תביעה לפיצויים בגין פגיעה בפרטיות שנדחתה. ערעור שהגישו לבית המשפט המחוזי נמשך על ידם מרצון, בעקבות המלצת בית המשפט המחוזי בדיון. **טענת המבקשים:** המבקשים ביקשו רשות ערעור לבית המשפט העליון ("גלגול שלישי"), בטענה כי חזרו בהם מהערעור בשל אולטימטום שהוצג להם (דחייה ללא הוצאות או דחייה עם הוצאות), וכי פסק הדין המחוזי ניתן ללא דיון וללא הנמקה, וכי עניינם מעורר שאלות עקרוניות. **החלטת בית המשפט העליון (כב' השופט נ' סולברג):** הבקשה נדחית. **עיקרון משפטי:** בית המשפט קבע כי דין הבקשה להידחות בשל העיקרון של סופיות ההליך והבחירה הפרוצדורלית. מרגע שהמבקשים קיבלו את הצעת בית המשפט המחוזי והחליטו לחזור בהם מהערעור, וניתן על בסיס זה פסק דין, אין הם רשאים לחזור בהם מבחירתם ולבקש "סיבוב נוסף", ובטח שלא במסגרת "גלגול שלישי". המבקשים היו רשאים שלא לקבל את הצעת בית המשפט המחוזי, ומשבחרו לקבלה, הם מחויבים לה.