Litigation 2026 Comparisons

Israel has an independent, adversarial legal system rooted in the Common Law tradition (though with continental influences in codified substantive law). Civil proceedings are governed by the New Civil Procedure Regulations, enacted in 2018 and in force since 2021.

Traditionally, the system favoured written submissions and affidavits over oral arguments and testimonies. The Civil Law Procedure Regulations now theoretically prioritise direct examination and oral summation in certain proceedings. Many judges have yet to adopt this new approach, preferring to rely on their discretion as established by the Regulations and order for the submission of affidavits and written summations after testimonies.

Israel’s judiciary is structured into three tiers: magistrates’ courts, district courts, and the Supreme Court, which also serves as the High Court of Justice. In addition, specialised tribunals operate in specific fields, including labour, family, religious, and administrative matters. Notably, Israel does not employ juries; all cases are adjudicated by professional judges.

In ordinary civil proceedings, the period from when the plaintiff initiates the action until reaching trial (the evidentiary stage) takes at least 12 months.

Court hearings are generally open to the public (except for in the family courts), and court protocols and decisions are accessible through the Judicial Authority’s official website. Access to pleadings and accompanying documents requires a formal request to the court, which is typically granted. Sensitive or confidential materials may be protected and sealed pursuant to specific judicial procedures.

Legal representation before Israeli courts is regulated by Section 21 of the Bar Association Law, 1961. Only attorneys duly admitted to the Israel Bar are authorised to appear and advocate before the courts. Foreign lawyers are not permitted to represent clients directly; however, they may provide advisory services and collaborate with Israeli counsel in a consultative capacity.

Third-party litigation funding is permissible in Israel, though it is a relatively recent and developing practice. Contingency fee arrangements are allowed under the Bar Association Rules; however, attorneys are prohibited under the Bar’s ethics rules from providing loans or direct financial assistance to their clients.

There is no limitation in the framework of civil proceedings in this regard. However, in a recent decision (which is not a binding precedent), the District Court ruled that third-party funding is not allowed in class actions (Class Action (Central District Court) 28974 10 20 Ofer Pirit v Monsanto Company (7 August 2025)).

Third-party funding, although available, is uncommon and rarely utilised.

There is no minimum or maximum amount a third-party funder will fund.

Third-party funders generally cover necessary litigation costs, such as court fees, attorneys’ fees, expert reports, and witnesses’ expenses.

Contingency fees are generally permitted in civil cases. In some areas, such as motor vehicle accident claims, the law sets specific rules on the fee structure, including maximum percentages or required disclosures.

There are no time limits by when a party to the litigation should obtain third-party funding.

In civil matters, there are no mandatory pre-action requirements. By contrast, in family proceedings (such as divorce), pre-action procedures are compulsory and may include the exchange of formal letters, attempts at mediation, or participation in preliminary consultations. Non-compliance with these requirements may result in sanctions, including procedural delays, adverse cost orders, or restrictions on filing the claim. In certain cases, prospective defendants may also be obliged to provide a response to a pre-action letter.

The statute of limitations in Israel is generally seven years for civil claims and 25 years for real estate claims (15 years if the property is unregistered). The limitation period commences upon the accrual of the cause of action, subject to exceptions such as fraud, concealment, or lack of knowledge. Certain statutes prescribe different limitation periods for specific types of claims, such as insurance claims (three years).

Legal proceedings in Israel require three jurisdictional elements: international, subject-matter, and territorial jurisdiction. International jurisdiction determines if Israeli courts can hear a case, applying only to persons with physical or constructive presence in Israel and to disputes connected to Israel. Subject-matter jurisdiction is legally mandated and cannot be altered by agreement, while territorial jurisdiction is generally negotiable between parties. These requirements vary across civil, religious, and labour courts.

The initiation of a civil lawsuit is governed by Chapter 3 of the Civil Procedure Regulations. A statement of claim is comprised of three sections: (i) the title; (ii) a summary, including jurisdictional grounds and the relief sought; and (iii) the substantive claims.

Page limits apply depending on the forum. In the magistrates’ court, Part II may not exceed two pages and Part III nine pages. In the district court, Part II may not exceed three pages and Part III twelve pages. However, in district court claims seeking monetary relief exceeding ILS2.5 million, in personal injury claims, or in claims brought under the Road Accident Victims Compensation Law, the limits are extended to five pages for Part II and twenty-five pages for Part III.

Amendments to the statement of claim may be made with the court’s approval.

The purpose of service of process is both to notify the defendant of the legal proceedings and to establish the Israeli court’s jurisdiction over a defendant, including a foreign defendant. Service is generally the responsibility of the plaintiff, unless the court orders otherwise.

The Regulations establish that a prospective plaintiff can serve a foreign prospective defendant in its domicile outside of Israel – if there are grounds for such extraterritorial service (listed in the regulations) – without needing to obtain prior permission from the court. The plaintiff is still required to file a motion to court requesting orders regarding the method of executing the service. This motion must be accompanied by an affidavit supporting the cause of action of the prospective suit, as well as the existence of grounds for extraterritorial service, and must include the defendant’s address abroad to which process is intended to be served.

If the court does not deny the motion, and process has been served accordingly, the defendant may move to quash the extraterritorial service, arguing that the Israeli court lacks jurisdiction, or that it is not the appropriate forum for adjudicating the dispute (forum non conveniens). The performance of extraterritorial service is regulated by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (1965), to which Israel is a party.

A claim may also be served on a foreign defendant not present in Israel through a local representative on its behalf that represents it on a regular basis with respect to its matters in Israel, if the action pertains to the same matter.

Should the defendant fail to file its defence, the plaintiff may petition the court for a default judgment within 60 days after service is made, provided that: (i) proper service of process has been duly effected; and (ii) the claim establishes a prima facie case on the merits. To secure such relief, the plaintiff must file a formal motion with the court accompanied by appropriate supporting documentation.

Class action lawsuits have become a prevalent phenomenon in Israel in recent years, including against foreign international corporations. The legal framework for filing and adjudicating class actions in Israel is outlined in the Class Actions Law, 2006, and the Class Action Regulations, 2010.

The certification stage begins with the plaintiff filing a motion to certify the class action. The motion to certify must demonstrate that the claim meets the cumulative conditions required for the court to certify the motion, inter alia, that the class action raises material questions of law or fact that are common to all the members of the putative class and that the claim has a prima facie basis. Participation is generally on an opt-out basis.

There are no requirements to provide clients with a cost estimate of the potential litigation at the outset.

Parties may bring interim applications prior to the trial or substantive hearing of a claim. Available interim remedies may include temporary injunctions orders, temporary attachment orders, or the appointment of a receiver. Such applications extend beyond case management matters and can provide temporary or protective relief. In determining whether to grant an interim remedy, courts typically consider factors such as whether the claim has a prima facie basis, the balance of convenience, the applicant’s good faith, and the urgency of the circumstances.

Courts may strike out claims, or parts of claims (“dismissal in limine”), if, under the assumption that all pleaded facts are true, the claim does not show a cause of action. The standard for such dismissal is applied strictly.

Up to 20 days before the first pre-trial hearing, a list of all motions (primarily those concerning discovery proceedings, questionnaires and most other procedural issues) must be submitted. Apart from this, from the filing of the last pleading until the date of the pre-trial hearing, no motions may be filed except for those motions regulated under Regulation 49 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, which include:

• motions for interim relief;
• motions to take early testimony;
• motions to stay proceedings;
• motions for examination by a defendant’s expert;
• motions to join additional parties;
• motions to consolidate proceedings;
• motions to amend pleadings;
• motions to disqualify a judge;
• motions to exempt a party from personal appearance;
• motions to approve a settlement or mediation agreement; and
• motions to suspend or revoke the appointment of an expert.

Interested parties may be permitted to join proceedings if they possess a direct legal interest in the outcome or if the case is likely to affect their rights or obligations. In practice, it is generally easier to join as a defendant than as a plaintiff. The court may address issues of joinder during a pre-trial hearing or upon consideration of a formal application submitted by the interested party (or by one of the parties to the claim).

Courts have discretion to order plaintiffs to provide security for costs. While such orders are less commonly imposed on individual plaintiffs, the presumption is reversed in the case of corporate plaintiffs, for whom security is generally required. In exercising this discretion, courts take into account factors such as the merits of the claim and the risk of non-payment of costs. The procedure is governed by Regulation 96 of the Civil Procedure Regulations (and Section 353A of the Company's Law – for a corporate plaintiff).

Courts exercise broad discretion in awarding costs for interim applications or motions. Such costs may be awarded immediately, conditionally, or in some cases not at all. Cost awards seldom correspond to the parties’ actual expenses. The applicable procedure and rules are set out in Chapter 18 of the Civil Procedure Regulations.

The timeframe for a court to address an application or motion varies depending on the nature of the request and the court’s workload. For instance, a motion filed prior to the first pre-trial hearing is typically considered at that hearing or shortly thereafter, with a decision issued soon afterwards. Urgent motions may be submitted at any stage, and in certain circumstances an on-duty judge may be assigned to handle immediate requests, such as applications for interim relief.

Discovery in civil proceedings encompasses both document disclosure and the use of questionnaires. However, no depositions are allowed under Israeli civil proceedings. Unless the court orders otherwise, parties are required to exchange affidavits listing all relevant documents within 30 days following the submission of the last pleading. Parties may also demand discovery of specific documents, and if the opposing party does not comply, may request a specific discovery order from the court. While the discovery process is primarily administered by the litigants, it remains subject to court supervision. Parties may also submit motions to challenge or regulate the conduct of discovery between them. The procedure is governed by Chapter 9 of the Civil Procedure Regulations.

The court has authority, in certain circumstances, upon a request made by a party, to order third parties to disclose documents, if it is convinced that the third party holds relevant documents.

The court may also issue directions in connection with the examination of a witness, including requiring the third party to come to the court as a witness and produce any relevant documents in their possession or control.

As a general rule, the parties are to exchange documents independently, without court involvement.

A party seeking disclosure of a specific document must make a submit a proper request to court.

The legislature has expressly emphasised that proper disclosure and inspection procedures are a fundamental prerequisite for fair judicial proceedings. Accordingly, if the court finds that a party has not adequately fulfilled its obligations under the Civil Procedure Regulations, it may order immediate cost sanctions and, in special circumstances, strike out that party’s pleadings.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

Attorney–client privilege is absolute, whereas other types of privilege, such as doctor–patient or journalist privilege, are relative and may be set aside at the court’s discretion. The law recognises both external and in-house counsel, with both subject to attorney–client privilege and ethical duties.

In addition to attorney–client privilege and other recognised privileges, Israeli law permits non-disclosure in circumstances where the public interest requires confidentiality, where documents were prepared primarily for the purpose of litigation, or where disclosure may compromise state security or foreign relations. In such cases, the court conducts a balancing test, weighing the need for disclosure against the competing interest in maintaining confidentiality. In addition, if the disclosed documents contain trade secrets or any other proprietary information, such information may be redacted (sometimes the original document is disclosed to the court while the redacted version is disclosed to the opposing party).

Interim remedies are governed by Chapter 15 of the Civil Procedure Regulations. Available measures include temporary injunctions, attachment orders, receivership, preservation of evidence, and an order banning travel out of the country. Asset-freezing injunctions and attachment orders are relatively common (when circumstances are appropriate). In exceptional cases, courts may also restrain parties from initiating or continuing parallel proceedings abroad.

When deciding whether to grant such relief, the court must determine whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case. In addition, courts balance the potential harm to the applicant if the order is refused against the harm to the respondent if it is granted, while also considering any potential impact on third parties or the public interest.

Courts further examine whether the objective could be achieved through a less restrictive measure, the parties’ good faith, and whether the party delayed in seeking relief.

In the case of attachment or injunction orders, the court additionally considers whether denial of the order would significantly hinder enforcement of the judgment.

Urgent injunctive relief may be obtained ex parte from a duty judge who handles emergency matters outside regular hours.

Israeli courts may grant injunctive relief on an ex parte basis in urgent cases where prior notice could frustrate the purpose of the order, such as preventing asset dissipation or evidence destruction. Such orders, often referred to as “interim relief”, are exceptional, temporary in nature, and typically subject to a prompt inter partes hearing where the respondent can challenge the relief.

Injunctive relief (including ex parte relief) is conditional upon the applicant providing an undertaking and, at the court’s discretion, depositing security (cash or third-party guarantee) to cover potential damages.

Israeli courts do not have territorial jurisdiction over assets located outside the territory of the State of Israel. However, a personal order (a “Mareva injunction”) directing the respondent to act in a certain manner may require the respondent to take action (or refrain from taking action) in relation to assets located outside Israel.

The most common such relief is an attachment order which is directed at a third party who holds monies (or other possessions) of the respondent.

Failure to comply with an injunction may result in contempt of court proceedings. Such proceedings are quasi criminal in nature and are invoked sparingly, typically only where the respondent did not comply with a court’s order which is clear, specific, and unambiguous.

Generally, following the filing of all pleadings, a pre-trial hearing is conducted. Subsequently, the parties submit their evidence (affidavits and expert opinions), after which the evidentiary hearing takes place.

Traditionally, the system favoured affidavits (followed by cross-examination) over oral arguments and testimonies. The Civil Law Procedure Regulations now theoretically prioritise direct examination and oral summation in certain proceedings. However, many judges have yet to adopt this new approach, preferring to rely on their discretion as established by the Regulations. Hence, testimony is generally presented through affidavits of evidence in chief, followed by oral cross-examination during the evidentiary hearing.

Once the evidentiary stage is completed, the parties submit summations, either orally or in writing, after which the court delivers its judgment.

Pursuant to the Civil Procedure Regulations, most motions must be included in a consolidated list submitted prior to the first pre-trial hearing. At that hearing, the court will either rule on the motions directly or set the manner and timing for their determination. The judge retains discretion to address the motions orally during the hearing or to issue a written decision thereafter. In most complex litigation, judges hold another pre-trial hearing after the submission of the evidence, both in an attempt to find an amicable settlement that will render cross-examinations unnecessary or to set the dates on which each of the witnesses will be cross-examined.

Jury trials are not available in civil cases.

The general rule is that admissible evidence must be provided by a witness testifying about matters within their direct personal knowledge and observation.

Hearsay is ordinarily inadmissible, subject to statutory exceptions.

In addition, expert testimony and certain categories of documentary evidence may be admitted under specific legal provisions.

Parties are entitled to adduce expert evidence in support of their argumentation. The court possesses inherent discretion to appoint an independent expert on behalf of the court. Where the parties provide mutual consent, the court-appointed expert’s opinion supersedes those submitted by the parties. In the absence of such consensus, the court will evaluate all expert opinions presented; however, in practice, the testimony of the court-appointed expert is generally afforded greater probative weight.

Court hearings in Israel are generally open to the public, pursuant to the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 1984. An exception applies to proceedings before the family courts. Additionally, the court may order a closed hearing where necessary to protect privacy interests or safeguard state security.

Israel adheres to an adversarial system in which the parties are primarily responsible for conducting the proceedings. Judicial intervention is generally limited to procedural matters.

More complex determinations, as well as final judgments, are usually issued in writing.

According to the latest data published by the Courts Administrator, the average length of regular civil proceedings in the magistrates’ courts is 10.9 months (including claims that are dismissed or settled before final judgment). The average length of regular civil proceedings initiated in the district courts is 21.4 months (including claims that are dismissed or settled before final judgment), and 14.4 months for civil appeals in the Supreme Court. As this is an average, complex litigation often takes much longer to adjudicate.       

Court approval is required for settlements reached in the course of pending proceedings. In practice, courts seldom interfere with the parties’ autonomy to settle and will generally approve an agreement unless it contravenes public policy. Settlements concluded entirely outside the judicial process do not require court approval, unless the parties seek to have the agreement given effect as a judgment.

Parties may reach settlements outside the court, and such agreements may remain confidential. In these circumstances, the parties sign a settlement agreement which includes a confidentiality clause, inform the court that they are no longer interested in the litigation, and request the court to dismiss the claim. However, if the parties seek to have the settlement given effect as a court judgment, it becomes part of the public record and can no longer remain confidential.

Court records and protocols are generally accessible to the public, subject to specific statutory exceptions.

When a settlement is granted the force of a judgment, it may be enforced through the Enforcement Office, or, where it requires the performance of a specific act, by way of contempt of court proceedings.

A settlement that has not been granted the force of a judgment is enforceable solely as a contractual agreement, and a party seeking its enforcement must initiate a claim in which they will request a remedy of specific performance.

The ability to set aside a settlement depends on the specific circumstances. A settlement agreement that has not been granted the force of a judgment may be challenged on contractual grounds, such as mistake, misrepresentation, or lack of good faith. By contrast, where a settlement has been given the force of a judgment, it may only be set aside through appellate proceedings or by filing a motion to vacate the judgment, subject to the narrow grounds permitted under law (such as fraud).

Any civil court has the authority to grant declaratory judgments, mandatory orders, prohibitory injunctions, specific performance, and any other relief it considers just and appropriate in the circumstances.

As a general principle, courts award compensation for proven actual harm or contractual damages.

There is no statutory cap on the quantum of damages; however, awards may be subject to limitation in particular circumstances based on the extent of compensation assessed and considerations of public policy.

While punitive damages are recognised in theory under Israeli law, they are exceedingly rare and granted only in the most exceptional circumstances.

The Award of Interest and Linkage Law regulates the application of interest and linkage. Pre-judgment interest is determined either in accordance with the parties’ contractual arrangements or, in the absence of such agreement, at the discretion of the court. Post-judgment interest and linkage are prescribed by law and are almost invariably awarded, though the court retains discretion in their application.

Where the parties have agreed upon a higher contractual interest rate, the court may enforce that rate.

Domestic judgments are enforced through proceedings before the Execution Office. Where a judgment requires the performance of a specific act, enforcement may also be pursued through contempt of court proceedings, or by the appointment of a receiver who will be empowered to perform the defendant’s obligation on behalf of the defendant.

Enforcement of foreign civil judgments is regulated under the Israeli Foreign Judgments Enforcement Law, 1958. Per the law, a foreign judgment is a final civil ruling issued by a competent judicial authority in a foreign country. It may include a judgment for the payment of compensation or damages to an injured party, even when not given in a purely civil matter.

The Israeli court may enforce a foreign judgment if all of the following conditions are met:

• The judgment must have been issued by a competent authority according to the laws of the foreign country.
• The judgment must be final and no longer subject to appeal under foreign law.
• The content of the judgment must not violate Israeli legal principles or moral standards.
• The judgment must be enforceable in the country where it was issued.

Enforcement of a foreign judgment in Israel is carried out by submitting a motion for enforcement to an Israeli civil court. The appropriate court – either the magistrates’ court or the district court – is determined based on the nature of the relief sought and the court’s jurisdiction.

Although the enforcement is mainly a procedural proceeding, the respondent to the motion for enforcement has the right to object to the motion.

Once a foreign judgment is declared enforceable by the Israeli court, it holds the same validity and effect as a judgment issued by an Israeli court. After the court grants the motion for enforcement, the judgment can then be executed through the Israeli Execution Office, if further enforcement actions are necessary.

An interim decision may be appealed only by leave (by filing a motion for leave to appeal), whereas a final judgment may be appealed as of right.

Judgments of the magistrates’ court are appealed to the district court, while judgments of the district court (while sitting as a trial court) are appealed to the Supreme Court.

A judgment of a district court, rendered within the framework of an appeal against a magistrates’ court judgment, may only be appealed to the Supreme Court by leave.

A judgment of the Supreme Court is final and cannot be appealed.

There are exceptional cases in which the trial court grants permission to appeal as part of its decision; however, in all other cases, leave to appeal must be requested from the appellate court.

The appellate court has wide discretion whether to grant permission to appeal.

An appeal by right must be filed within 60 days of service of the judgment. Along with the notice of appeal, the appellant is required to deposit security to secure the respondent’s costs and to serve notice of such deposit on the respondent.

The appellate court does not conduct a de novo hearing but rather reviews the decision of the lower court. New evidence may be admitted on appeal only if the party requesting the admittance of new evidence can show that it could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered and presented at first instance, and if its admission is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice. New legal arguments may likewise be advanced, subject to the court’s discretion.

The court may condition the hearing of an appeal or motion for leave to appeal on the deposit of security for costs, usually up to approximately USD10,000 (for an appeal to the Supreme Court). 

The appellate court may:

• affirm the decision appealed against, either on the same grounds or on different grounds;
• annul the decision and order a new hearing;
• remit the matter to the lower court for completion; or
• issue an additional or alternative decision, where necessary.

Throughout the proceedings, each party typically bears its own costs. The claimant is obligated to pay court fees, and where a court-appointed expert is retained, the parties ordinarily share the expert’s fees equally.

Upon conclusion of the matter, the court makes a determination regarding costs: customarily, the successful party is awarded costs against the unsuccessful party. The award of costs remains within the court’s discretion and usually represents only a fraction of the actual costs incurred.

A cost order may be contested as part of an appeal against the judgment.

In determining costs, the court takes into account a range of factors, including the complexity of the case, the duration of the proceedings, as well as the extent to which the parties contributed to or hindered the efficient conduct of the proceedings. Additional considerations may include the outcome of the case, any evidence of bad faith, and whether there was an abuse of process.

Where the court orders reimbursement of documented expenses, such amounts are typically subject to linkage and interest from the date they were paid.

However, where the court awards a lump sum for costs (as is more common), linkage and interest accrue only from the date on which the costs were to be paid according to the judgment.

The Israeli legal system strongly promotes the use of mediation and arbitration, and courts frequently encourage parties to pursue these alternatives.

In most magistrates’ courts, parties are required to attend a mandatory “information, acquaintance, and co-ordination” session (“Mahut”), which is essentially an initial mediation session in which the mediator presents to the parties the advantages of the process and attempts to facilitate resolution of the dispute through mediation.

A similar mandatory procedure also applies in family courts.

Over the years, certain courts have established a practice of referring parties to judicial settlement conferences (“Pishur”) typically conducted after the filing of affidavits but before the commencement of the evidentiary stage. The purpose is to encourage compromise and potentially resolve the dispute without the need for a full evidentiary hearing and the submission of summations. Additionally, courts may refer cases to mediation and encourage the parties to resolve the dispute by arbitration. These proceedings are not mandatory but are subject to both parties’ consent.

Israel has a number of well-established ADR institutions, many of which are affiliated with the Israeli Bar Association. These centres provide mediation and arbitration services and are deeply integrated into the legal community. They are frequently staffed by retired judges who serve as mediators and arbitrators. Notable examples include the Mishkan for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution and the Israeli Institute for Commercial Arbitration.

Arbitration in Israel is governed by the Arbitration Law, 1968.

Under said law, an arbitral award may be submitted to the court for approval, after which it becomes enforceable in the same manner as a court judgment.

In 2024, the International Commercial Arbitration Law was enacted, establishing a modern legal framework and procedural rules for the conduct of international commercial arbitration in Israel.

Matters that cannot be referred to arbitration are those that cannot legally be the subject of an agreement between the parties. These include constitutional questions, criminal proceedings, issues of personal status, and any matter in which decision-making authority is reserved to the state. In addition, rights arising under mandatory protective labour laws are excluded from arbitration, given their social function of safeguarding employees. Disputes with a significant impact on third parties or the public at large are likewise deemed unsuitable for arbitration.

Courts may revoke or modify an arbitral award upon application by a party. The grounds for annulment include:

• the absence of a valid arbitration agreement;
• the appointment of an arbitrator lacking proper authority;
• the arbitrator acting without jurisdiction or in excess thereof;
• denial of a party’s fundamental right to present claims or adduce evidence;
• failure to adjudicate an issue properly submitted for determination;
• failure to provide adequate reasoning where statutorily required;
• failure to apply the applicable law where mandated;
• issuance of the award beyond the prescribed time limit;
• the substantive content of the award contravening public policy; or
• any ground that would justify annulment of a court judgment.

Judicial enforcement of arbitral awards requires confirmation or recognition by the court. For domestic arbitral awards, the procedure is confirmation under Section 23 of the Arbitration Law, which grants the arbitral award the status of a court judgment for all purposes. For foreign arbitral awards, the main route is recognition and enforcement under Section 29A of the Arbitration Law, in accordance with the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958 (“New York Convention”), while the alternative route of enforcing a foreign court judgment that confirmed the award (under the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law) is considered exceptional. In both cases, once confirmed or recognised, the award may be enforced through the Execution Office.

In addition, Section 44 of the International Commercial Arbitration Law, 2024, provides that an arbitral award under this law shall be recognised as binding on the parties and enforced by the court upon a written application. The party seeking to rely on or enforce the award must attach the original award or a copy thereof, and, if so ordered by the court, also a Hebrew translation of the award in accordance with the court’s instructions.

In 2021, the new Civil Procedure Regulations entered into force, introducing a major reform. At present, no further amendments are planned.

The volume of litigation in Israel tends to fluctuate in response to political, environmental, and economic developments. For instance, following the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an increase in claims concerning non-performance of contracts on the basis of force majeure. Likewise, in view of Israel’s recent security situation, there has been a notable rise in claims for damages relating to the war.