Discovered a default judgment against you in Israel? The deadline for a cancellation motion, grounds for cancellation, and staying enforcement and liens.
Few moments are more unsettling than the one in which a person discovers — often through a notice from the bank about an attachment on their account, a letter from the enforcement office, or a deduction from their salary — that a judgment exists against them that they never even knew about. In many cases the defendant did not know that a claim had been filed against them at all, or knew but failed to file a statement of defense on time.
The legal basis is straightforward: Regulation 130 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018 provides that where a defendant has not filed a statement of defense within the prescribed time, or where their statement of defense has been struck out, the court may enter judgment against them on the basis of the statement of claim alone — or require the plaintiff to provide sufficient proof of the claim. The deadline for filing a statement of defense is, as a rule, sixty days from the date the statement of claim was served (Regulation 9(b)), with longer deadlines in certain types of bodily injury claims and a shorter deadline in fast-track proceedings. A similar outcome is possible when a defendant fails to appear at a hearing: Regulation 75(2) allows the plaintiff to prove their claim ex parte and obtain the relief sought on the basis of the evidence admitted.
Such a judgment is a judgment for all intents and purposes. It can be executed through the Enforcement and Collection Authority (Hotza'a LaPoal), it accrues linkage differentials and interest, and it can lead to attachments, restrictions, and collection proceedings — even though the defendant never presented their side of the story. It is precisely for this reason that the secondary legislator established a dedicated mechanism for cancelling it.
Regulation 131 of the Civil Procedure Regulations provides that a litigant against whom a decision was rendered ex parte may file a cancellation motion "within thirty days from the date the decision was served on them," and the court may cancel it on such terms as it sees fit. Note the wording: the count begins from the date the judgment was served on the defendant — not from the date it was rendered. Anyone who discovered the judgment late, for example only when an attachment was imposed, must immediately determine, by reviewing the court file, when lawful service of process was effected, if at all.
Missing the deadline is not necessarily the end of the road, but it raises a high hurdle: an extension of a deadline set in the Regulations requires "special reasons" (Regulation 176(b)), and the court will scrutinize carefully why the motion was not filed on time. The most important practical rule is a single one: the moment you learn of a judgment entered in your absence — every day counts, and you must not wait.
The case law distinguishes between two fundamentally different tracks. The first is cancellation as a matter of justice (bitul me-chovat ha-tzedek): where the proceeding is defective at its root — first and foremost where the statement of claim or the summons was not lawfully served on the defendant — the judgment will be cancelled without the court attaching any weight to the strength of the defense arguments and their prospects (RCA 1119/05 Goldsil Ltd. v. Bilia Robert Properties and Building Ltd.). The rationale: a person who was not lawfully summoned did not have their day in court, and the fundamental right to a fair proceeding prevails.
The second track is discretionary cancellation, where service was lawfully effected. Here the court examines two considerations: first — what caused the failure to file a statement of defense or to appear; second — what are the defendant's prospects of success if the judgment is cancelled. The case law generally attaches greater weight to the second consideration, namely the prospects of the defense (RCA 1788/20 Abergil v. Alcatraz Island Ltd., as also cited in RCA 6730/22). The case law shows a clear tendency to grant cancellation motions (CA 7882/14 Aharon v. Ovadia), since the right of access to the courts demands great caution before the court's doors are locked in a litigant's face — but cancellation is not automatic, and motions that failed to point to a genuine defense have been denied more than once.
Hence also the most important practical lesson, which has arisen explicitly in the Supreme Court's case law in recent years: a motion resting entirely on a claim of defective service of process, without setting out even in brief the defense arguments on the merits, is a dangerous motion. If the service argument is rejected — nothing will remain. A proper cancellation motion always addresses both planes together. It is also worth knowing that the court may condition the cancellation on terms, chief among them an award of costs in favor of the opposing party (CA 436/83 Levy v. Deko).
The cancellation motion is filed with the court that rendered the judgment, within the same case file. It is a written motion under Regulation 50 of the Civil Procedure Regulations: it must be reasoned, refer to legal authorities, and be supported by an affidavit verifying the facts — both the facts explaining the default (why no statement of defense was filed, or why there was no appearance) and the essence of the defense on the merits of the claim. The Regulations limit the length of the motion and the affidavit, so focused and precise drafting is required.
The opposing party may respond to the motion within the time set in the Regulations, and the court is authorized to decide on the papers or after a hearing, including cross-examination of the affiants — for example, where the question of service is the subject of a factual dispute. A deficient, generic, or evasive affidavit can doom the entire motion; precisely because this is a second chance, the courts expect full disclosure and a coherent account.
Alongside the cancellation motion there is also a separate track of appellate challenge to the judgment itself, and the law regulates the relationship between the two tracks: where a cancellation motion has been filed under Regulation 131, the deadline for appealing the judgment is counted from the date the decision on the cancellation motion was served (Regulation 137(c)). And if the cancellation motion was denied — the denial decision itself can also be challenged, usually by way of an application for leave to appeal. Choosing the right track, and at times combining them, is a strategic question that depends on the circumstances of each case.
A critical point many are unaware of: filing a cancellation motion does not, in itself, stop the collection proceedings. The Enforcement Law, 5727-1967 provides that execution of a judgment shall not be stayed except under the provisions of the Law or by order of a court (section 17). Therefore, in parallel with the cancellation motion, one should consider an explicit motion to stay execution and proceedings — whether before the court that rendered the judgment or, within the scope of his authority, before the enforcement registrar, who may suspend proceedings on the conditions set out in the Law, including the posting of security (section 16).
In examining a stay motion, the court weighs, among other things, the prospects of the cancellation motion, the balance of harms between the parties, and the reversibility of the situation — with the collection of money generally regarded as more reversible than the sale of assets. And if the judgment is ultimately cancelled, the Law regulates the restoration of the prior state of affairs within the enforcement file (section 18) — but restitution has its limits, especially where assets have already been sold to a third party. For this reason too, speed of response is critical: the further the proceedings advance, the harder it becomes to turn back the wheel.
Our office accompanies defendants who have discovered a judgment entered in their absence, from the moment of discovery through to the final decision. The work begins with an immediate review of the court file and the enforcement file: when the judgment was rendered, what was alleged in the statement of claim, whether and how service of process was effected, and what the status of the collection proceedings is. On the basis of this review, the appropriate motion is built — cancellation as a matter of justice, discretionary cancellation, or a combination of the arguments — alongside accompanying motions to stay execution and proceedings, all with close attention to the short deadlines set in the Regulations.
Further down the road, the office represents the client at the hearing on the motion, including the cross-examination of affiants on the question of service, and, where necessary, in proceedings challenging the decision. It is important to remember: every case is examined on its own merits, according to its circumstances and its evidence, and nothing in this article guarantees any outcome or constitutes legal advice. If you have discovered a default judgment entered against you — and especially if attachments have already been imposed — it is advisable to seek legal counsel as soon as possible, since the passage of time may narrow the options available to you.
The first step is to locate the case immediately: in which court the judgment was rendered, what it alleges, and whether the statement of claim and the judgment were lawfully served. Next, you must move quickly to prepare a cancellation motion under Regulation 131 of the Civil Procedure Regulations — the deadline is thirty days from the date the judgment was served on you — and, in parallel, consider a motion to stay execution and enforcement proceedings, since filing the cancellation motion alone does not stop the collection.
Not necessarily, but the hurdle is higher. First, check from when the deadline runs — it runs from the date the judgment was lawfully served, and not necessarily from the day you actually learned of it. Second, the court is authorized to extend a deadline set in the Regulations for special reasons (Regulation 176(b)). The question of timing depends heavily on the concrete facts, so it is important to act immediately and not add delay upon delay.
Where the court is persuaded that the statement of claim was not lawfully served, the settled rule is that the judgment will be cancelled as a matter of justice, regardless of the prospects of the defense. However, a claim of non-service is a factual claim that must be proven, and the opposing party is entitled to contest it, including through cross-examination of the affiants. It is therefore advisable that the cancellation motion always set out the defense arguments on the merits as well — so that even if the service argument is rejected, the discretionary cancellation track remains available to the court.
No. Under the Enforcement Law, execution of a judgment is stayed only by force of the provisions of the Law or a judicial order. To stop the collection proceedings, an explicit motion to stay execution and proceedings must be filed, within which the court will examine, among other things, the prospects of the cancellation motion and the balance of harms. The enforcement registrar is also authorized, on the conditions set out in the Law, to suspend proceedings — at times against the posting of security.
Denial of the motion is not necessarily the end of the matter. The denial decision can be challenged, usually by way of an application for leave to appeal, and alongside this there is an appellate track against the judgment itself, for which the deadline is counted — where a cancellation motion has been filed — from the date the decision on the motion was served (Regulation 137(c)). Choosing the right avenue of challenge depends on the reasons for the denial and the circumstances of the case, and every case is examined on its own merits.