There are several options available to identify the judgment debtor’s asset position prior to commencing court proceedings or enforcement proceedings. These include the following:

• The bankruptcy and insolvency registry – this registry can be used to examine whether an individual or a company is subject to any form of insolvency process or subject to any related orders.
• The Israeli companies’ registry – various information on companies, such as attachments imposed on a company’s assets, its shareholders and their holdings, the names and addresses of its directors, etc, is publicly available via the companies’ registry.
• The lien registry – information regarding liens on non-real estate property or rights to real estate not registered in the land registry of individuals and companies may be publicly available via the lien registry.
• The non-paying debtors' registry of the Israeli Enforcement and Collection Authority – information regarding declarations of individuals as non-paying debtors, indicating that the individual is or was a party to execution proceedings and did not meet the imposed payments as required.
• The land registry – if the opposing party is presumed to own a certain land plot or any other real estate, a party can confirm this information by accessing the public land registry and checking whether that plot is indeed owned by the opposite party. The land registry also includes information regarding mortgages and other interests regarding real estate assets.

Another option includes commencing court proceedings which would allow a party to receive information not otherwise available.

Attachment Order

During the course of legal proceedings (and even prior to the filing of a claim) a party may seek an interim attachment order aimed at a third party that is believed to hold assets or monies owned by an opposing party, or which the opposing party may have a right to receive in the future. The applicant is not required to prove that the third party indeed holds such assets; however, it is required to specify the nature of the assets that the applicant believes are held by the third party (for example, an attachment application aimed at a law firm as a third party can seek an attachment for all monies that the firm holds as a trustee for the defendant), unless the order is aimed at financial institutions (where a general attachment application will suffice).

The third party would then be required to reply as to whether they hold any assets owned by (or owed to) the party responding to the motion. If they so confirm, an attachment may be imposed on the assets specified in the motion, until after a judgment is rendered. Thus, the applicant will not only confirm information concerning the opposing party’s assets, but may also secure, or increase the chances for, the enforcement of any judgment obtained in the future.

A court order imposing an attachment will usually be given subject to the following conditions:

• the alleged cause of action in the main claim is sufficiently supported by prima facie evidence;
• the “balance of convenience” must be in favour of the applicant (ie, the harm to the applicant, should the order not be granted, outweighs the harm which may be caused to the respondent should the order be granted, and when relevant also outweighs the harm caused to a third party or to a public matter);
• there is a reasonable concern that satisfying a judgment in the case would be substantially burdensome should the order not be given; and
• no other remedy of lesser harm could achieve the purpose of the attachment order.

Furthermore, after a judgment is rendered, the judgment creditor may commence execution proceedings (see 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments under Judgment execution proceedings). The judgment creditor may then request that the judgment debtor be summoned to a “financial ability investigation”, which would determine the debtor’s financial capability to satisfy the judgment. The judgment creditor may have a right to be present in this investigation, as well as to receive information regarding the debtor’s assets obtained during the investigation.

Judgments under Israeli law may differ in the remedy that they grant the plaintiff, for example: injunctions, specific performance orders, declaratory relief, and pecuniary relief.

Furthermore, judgments may also differ in the length of time during which they remain in force. Below are a few examples: 

• Temporary ex parte order – first granted on an ex parte basis and based on prima facie evidence, a temporary ex parte order remains in force at least until after an inter partes hearing is held.
• Interim order – often given on the basis of prima facie evidence in support of a plaintiff’s main claim, the court will normally issue said order after having heard both parties’ positions. Once issued, the order remains in force until further deliberation in the main claim. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. For example, interim attachment orders and Anton Piller orders are typically issued ex parte, after which the defendant may file a motion to revoke the order.
• Final judgment – given after deliberation in the main claim, and which remains in force indefinitely unless an appeal is filed and granted. Once the deadline to file an appeal has passed, a final judgment becomes unappealable. A judgment may be subject to a statute of limitations defence after 25 years if the creditor did not take any actions to advance its performance.

There are several options to enforce a domestic judgment in Israel. These can be divided into guaranteeing the fulfilment of a judgment ex ante (before it is rendered), or acting to enforce the judgment ex post (after it is rendered).

Prior to Final Judgment

Interim injunction order

Before a final judgment is rendered, the plaintiff may move to receive an interim injunction order which would prohibit the defendant from performing any transaction relating to certain assets or funds during the proceedings or until further order of the court.

These interim orders are obtained by filing the appropriate motion to court, and may be granted ex parte as a temporary order until further deliberation.

Attachment order

It is possible to obtain an attachment order whereby the defendant cannot make any transactions relating to assets owned by him that are subject to the order (eg, real estate assets) or whereby a third party has to maintain within its possession (ie, not transfer to the defendant) assets that are held by that third party but belong to the defendant or are owed to the defendant from that third party.

An attachment may apply to funds or assets indebted to a defendant (a potential future judgment debtor) held by third parties, or to assets owned by the defendant, whether they are held by third parties or by the defendant. Also, the attachment can remain in force until a judgment is rendered, and may later allow the court or execution authorities to order the sale of the attached assets to secure the performance of the judgment.

This is achieved by filing a motion, during the proceeding (or even before filing the claim), to impose an attachment on the defendant’s assets, including those held by third parties, such as banks and other financial institutions, as well as any other third party which may hold any assets in which the defendant has any rights or claims.

The applicant is not required to prove that any of the third parties named in the motion do in fact hold any assets belonging to the defendant (but with regard to third parties which are not financial institutions, the applicant is required to specify the nature of assets that he/she believes are in their possession), and may file the motion based on the possibility and belief that the third party in question may hold any such assets.

The attachment order is given ex parte and served on the relevant third party, which is then required to state whether it indeed holds any assets, towards which the defendant may have any rights.

If the order is granted, an attachment is imposed on the monies or assets held by the third party and they may not be paid or transferred to the defendant without the court’s permission.

In cases where the attachment is imposed upon any movable or non-movable assets, the third party will not be allowed to transfer the assets to the defendant, and the defendant must not sell or otherwise grant rights to a third party with regard to those assets, until the judgment is satisfied and the attachment is removed. If the asset at issue is also subject to any government registry regarding ownership of assets (eg, cars or real estate), the existence of an attachment will be registered in the appropriate registry.

In cases where the attachment is imposed upon funds, the defendant will not be entitled to receive them as long as the attachment is in place.

After a judgment is rendered, the attachment continues to apply to the relevant asset/monies until the judgment is satisfied. Also, once a judgment is rendered, the execution procedure applies (see Judgment execution proceedings further in this section). This means that the asset may be sold and the returns used to satisfy the judgment.

Receivership

A plaintiff may be able to apply to the court seeking the appointment of a receiver over the defendant’s assets. This application may be on an interim basis, therefore assisting to safeguard the asset in question as long as the proceedings take place.

Such an order may be considered if an attachment is deemed insufficient to safeguard the defendant’s assets and funds until they may be used to satisfy a later judgment (for example, if the court deems it probable that the defendant may attempt to dissipate his assets, thus becoming judgment-proof, before a judgment is rendered).

If the motion is granted, the court will appoint and authorise a receiver to perform specific actions (such as to enter the defendant’s premises or to seize, hold and manage the defendant’s assets).

After a judgment has been rendered and the defendant has been found liable, the court may authorise the receiver to sell the assets and to use the returns to pay off the judgment debtor’s debts.

Following Final Judgment

Judgment execution proceedings

If the judgment debtor has not satisfied a judgment within 30 days from the day on which it was rendered (or a different deadline set by the court), the judgment creditor may move to execute the judgment via the bureau of execution. This applies both to a pecuniary judgment and to a specific performance order. 

The judgment creditor may instigate execution proceedings even if an appeal on the judgment is pending, as long as a stay of execution order has not been granted.

The execution registrar (a state-appointed person, authorised to make judicial decisions relating to execution of judgments) may issue a warrant for the seizure and sale of assets owned by the debtor in order to satisfy the judgment.

Once an execution motion has been filed, the judgment debtor is required to act according to one of the following alternatives:

• Pay the debt in full, within 20 days.
• Request a payment plan (in this case they will be required to prove that they do not have the financial ability to pay the debt in full), within 20 days.
• Request a “financial ability investigation”, which will determine the judgment debtor’s ability to pay the debt (and will decide on a payment plan if necessary), within 21 days. Note that a corporation may not be subject to a financial ability investigation. A financial ability investigation may also be initiated independently by the execution registrar, or at the request of the judgment creditor.

If the debtor was found to be able to pay the debt, but does not act accordingly, he/she might be subject to numerous additional sanctions, including the following:

• A stay of exit order, barring the debtor from leaving the jurisdiction.
• Declaration as a limited client by the bank, rendering the debtor unable to use checks or unlimited bank accounts.
• Limiting or prohibiting the debtor’s credit card use.
• Preventing the debtor from establishing a corporation or becoming a substantial stakeholder in a corporation.
• Listing the debtor in the registry of non-paying debtors (a publicly available registry; see 1.1 Options to Identify Another Party’s Asset Position).
• An attachment on various assets, which may be carried from an earlier order granted in court proceedings, or imposed independently by the execution registrar, including towards third parties – if the judgment debtor does not pay their debt, the attached assets may be later auctioned and the returns used to satisfy the judgment. Some assets may not be attached, eg, devices or animals which the debtor needs due to any disability; clothes; medical equipment; and other various basic living needs of the debtor and his/her family, and so on.

The judgment debtor may appeal to lift an attachment by filing a motion to the execution registrar; by paying his debts entirely; by agreeing on a payment plan with the judgment creditor (and then filing an appropriate motion to the execution registrar, with the creditor’s agreement); or by appealing the execution registrar’s decision to the court.

The aforementioned and following relate to civil judgment debtors. Separate execution proceedings, which include more severe sanctions (such as, in some cases, imprisonment), exist with regard to alimony debtors.

Contempt of court proceedings

A creditor may also instigate contempt of court proceedings against a judgment debtor for failure to comply with a judgment or court order (often considered, for example, where there has been a breach of an injunction or a specific performance order). Sanctions for contempt of court include a monetary fine or, in rare cases, imprisonment.

While applying pressure on the debtor, contempt proceedings do not directly guarantee the judgment’s satisfaction, and therefore do not replace execution proceedings. Also, contempt proceedings are limited to cases where the judgment creditor has no other options to enforce the judgment; therefore, the court will usually deny motions regarding contempt proceedings where the creditor may initiate execution proceedings (for example, in enforcing pecuniary judgments).

The costs involved and length of time taken for enforcement will vary depending on the circumstances and complexity of the case, on the course of action chosen by the judgment creditor and on the degree of opposition manifested by the judgment creditor.

In execution proceedings, for example, the procedure – and as a result, the relevant deadlines the debtor is subject to and the length of time for enforcement – varies depending on several parameters, such as the nature of the judgment (civil or alimony judgment), the debtor’s ability to pay his/her debt (whether proven, presumed or absent), challenges and motions filed by the debtor, the extent of the ability to identify assets owned by the debtor, and other factors.

The various sanctions mentioned above usually cannot be imposed on a debtor before an official warning has been furnished to him/her by the execution registrar, and six months have passed. Thus, execution proceedings can often extend over significant periods.

It is therefore worth considering, where there is a concern that the defendant may not satisfy the judgment, filing a motion to impose an attachment on the defendant’s assets before a judgment is rendered. If granted, this may assist in protecting the judgment creditor’s interests later on.

The judgment debtor may be summoned for a “financial ability investigation” by the execution registrar.

At the end of this procedure, the registrar will determine whether a judgment debtor is able to pay his/her debt, and his/her financial ability for satisfying the debt.

If the judgment debtor does not co-operate with the financial ability investigation, the execution registrar may issue an information order to various institutions which may have information on the judgment debtor’s assets (eg, the national social security authority; the insolvency supervisor; the census registry; the companies’ registry; the motor vehicle registry; the real estate registry; mobile service providers; credit companies; banks and insurance companies, etc).

If it is found that the judgment debtor has an asset or a source of income that may be used to satisfy the judgment, the judgment creditor may be entitled to receive information obtained by the order.

The judgment debtor may challenge the enforcement of a judgment by claiming that he/she is no longer required to satisfy the judgment, for various reasons which came into place after the judgment was rendered. For example, the judgment debtor may argue that he/she already satisfied the judgment, and therefore does not owe anything to the debtor; that the limitation period which applies to the judgment has passed; that he/she has reached a settlement with the judgment creditor; that his/her debt is subject to an offset; etc.

Often, when such a challenge is raised, an evidentiary hearing will take place before the execution registrar on that matter. The judgment debtor may raise this claim at any point during the execution procedure.

The execution registrar may deliberate on this claim as long as it concerns facts and legal claims formed after the judgment was rendered. The registrar may further order a stay of execution until this claim is decided.

A judgment granting declaratory relief may not be enforced by itself. However, if a defendant acts contrary to the declaration, a plaintiff may commence new proceedings on the basis of the court’s declaration and defendant’s conduct, and then seek to enforce an operative judgment in those new proceedings.

There is no official public judgment registry in Israel. If one knows the case number of a specific case involving a specific defendant, one can usually locate the judgment on the judiciary docket, available publicly (unless the case is confidential). Furthermore, private databases of judgments are available subject to payment, but do not necessarily include all judgments and decisions.

Under Israeli law, a judgment of a foreign court would generally be declared as enforceable in Israel in accordance with and subject to the provisions set out in the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law (1958). 

The types of civil judgments which can be enforced in Israel include pecuniary judgments, specific performance orders and injunctions (only as final orders), and judgments granting multiple/punitive damages.

The conditions specified in the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law for the enforcement of a foreign judgment are that:

• the judgment was given by a foreign court that, according to Lex Fori, was authorised to render it;
• the judgment is unappealable (an alimony foreign judgment may be enforced even if it still appealable, if the court deems it just and fair, and if the rest of the conditions specified above and below are met);
• the judgment is executable in the jurisdiction in which the judgment was rendered;
• the judgment is enforceable under the Israeli laws on enforcement of foreign judgment, and the judgment’s content is not contrary to public policy; and
• the judgment is subject to the reciprocity rule – ie, the judgment was rendered in a country whose laws allow for the enforcement of an Israeli judgment of a similar kind.

It is noted that in two recent cases the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the reciprocity requirement for the enforcement of a foreign judgment is fulfilled where there is reasonable potential for the enforcement of Israeli judgments in the country that issued the judgment, even where there were no examples in practice of the foreign country having enforced Israeli judgments. See Civil Appeal 3081/12 Double K Oil Products (1996) Ltd v Gazprom Transgaz Ochta (Nevo, 9.9.2014), where the court held that the reciprocity principle is upheld with regard to Russian judgments, partly due to the Russian courts’ newfound tendency of authorising enforcement of foreign judgments absent the existence of a treaty. Similarly, in Civil Appeal 7884/15 Itzhak Reitman v Jiangsu Overseas Group Co Ltd (Nevo, 14.8.2017), the Supreme Court held that reasonable potential for reciprocity is sufficient for the purposes of enforcing a judgment issued in China. Finally, a court will not grant a motion to declare a foreign judgment as enforceable if it was filed over five years after the foreign judgment was rendered, unless an extended period was agreed upon in a treaty between Israel and the country in which the judgment was rendered, or if the court finds other special circumstances which justify extending this period.

If a foreign judgment grants only a declaratory relief, meaning there is no in personam order to enforce, it may be recognised in Israel, either directly or incidentally. If a party then acts contrary to this foreign judgment, it may be used as a basis to instigate proceedings in Israel towards that party. The conditions for direct recognition are that:

• a treaty with a foreign country applies to the judgment (Israel is a signatory to bilateral treaties with the UK, Austria, Spain and Germany);
• Israel has taken upon itself the obligation in that treaty to recognise such judgments; 
• the obligation does not apply to judgments that may not be enforced under Israeli law;
• the judgment complies with the terms of the treaty; and
• the conditions detailed in 3.6 Challenging Enforcement of Foreign Judgments shall also apply here.

Alternatively, the court may incidentally recognise a foreign judgment in the context of deliberation of a matter under its authority (and only for the sake of the matter under discussion), even if the above conditions are not met.

Note that in 2021, Israel signed the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. While Israel has not yet ratified the convention, it is certainly likely that steps will be taken in the near future to incorporate the principles of the Convention within Israel’s domestic legislation. 

Criminal, administrative or fiscal foreign judgments will not be enforced.

The procedural requirements for the enforcement of a foreign judgment in Israel encompass the following:

• Filing a motion with the Israeli court to declare that a foreign judgment is enforceable. The application must be accompanied by an affidavit to support the facts stated therein.
• The respondent may file a response within a specific period of time (according to current civil procedure regulations, 20 days; though extensions are usually liberally granted). If a response is filed, a hearing – likely including an evidentiary hearing – will take place. Otherwise, the court may decide on the motion without a hearing.
• Once the court declares the judgment as enforceable, the judgment may then be enforced via the enforcement mechanisms mentioned in 2. Domestic Judgments as if it were issued by an Israeli court.

Moving to declare a foreign judgment as enforceable in Israel is a relatively straightforward process, entailing the payment of legal fees to an Israeli attorney and payment of court fees (usually several hundred dollars). 

The timeframe will then depend on how quickly the court deals with the motion and whether the opposing party elects to file a response.

If a response objecting to the enforcement is not filed, the process should not take more than three to six months. If an objection is filed, and depending on the nature of the objection (legal, factual or both) and its merits, the process may take a significantly longer period, potentially two to three years.

A party may challenge an attempt to declare a foreign judgment as enforceable in Israel, by way of proving one of the following:

• The judgment was obtained by fraud.
• No reasonable opportunity was given to the defendant to present his/her arguments and to produce his/her evidence before the judgment was rendered.
• The judgment was given by a court that was not competent to render it according to the rules of private international law applied in Israel. A person will not be considered as having submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court issuing a judgment against them solely on the basis of presenting oneself in court and:

              a) challenging the court’s jurisdiction;

              b) arguing for a discontinuance or a stay of the proceedings; and

              c) appealing for the release of assets seized or expected to be seized, or other protection thereof.

• The judgment contradicts a previous judgment given in the same matter between the same parties, which is still valid.
• At the time the action was brought before the foreign court, a suit in the same matter and between the same parties was pending before a court or a tribunal in Israel.
• The foreign judgment’s enforcement may prejudice the sovereignty or security of Israel.

If the opposing party successfully proves any of the above conditions, the foreign judgment will not be declared enforceable in Israel.

Until recently, all arbitration proceedings in Israel were exclusively governed by the Israeli Arbitration Law of 5728-1968 (the "Arbitration Law" or the "Old Law") and its supplementary regulations. While this law was applicable to both international and non-international arbitral proceedings, it did not take into account developments in the field of international arbitration in the years that followed its enactment. 

On 12 February 2024, the International Commercial Arbitration Law, 5784-2024 (the "International Arbitration Law" or the "New Law") was adopted by the Knesset. The New Law incorporates into Israeli domestic legislation the main tenets of the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

While the Old Law still applies to non-international arbitration proceedings, the New Law provides a novel regulatory framework for the enforcement and recognition of international arbitral awards (as defined in Section 3 of the New Law) that is in line with the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Although the law in its entirety applies to international commercial arbitrations seated in Israel, some of its provisions apply also to international arbitrations seated outside of Israel, in situations where Israeli courts are resorted to in the context of such arbitrations. 

Whereas non-international arbitral awards, which are governed by the Old Law, must first be approved by the Israeli court before they can be enforced via execution proceedings, international arbitral awards, which are governed by the New Law, require an application for recognition and enforcement of the award. In practice, it is unclear whether the procedure established in the New Law is substantively different from that under the Old Law. Until there is a sufficient body of case law under the New Law, it is difficult to draw concrete conclusions about its interpretation and implications in this respect.

With respect to non-international arbitrations, the award debtor may object to the award’s confirmation in court, by either appealing the award (though an appeal will be possible only if the arbitration agreement allows for an appeal, and even then the grounds for an appeal are very limited) or by filing a motion to revoke the award (within 45 days), where the grounds for revocation are also very limited (and include only procedural rather than substantive grounds). The award debtor may do so before or after the award creditor filed his/her motion for confirmation (but not after the award has been confirmed).

With respect to international arbitration awards, a distinction is made in the New Law between awards issued in arbitrations seated in Israel and those issued in arbitrations seated outside of Israel. Award debtors in international arbitrations seated in Israel may file either a motion to revoke the arbitral award based on the grounds in the New Law (which strictly adhere to the grounds listed in the Model Law), or an objection to a motion to recognise and enforce an international arbitration award. The substantive grounds for the consideration of such a motion are the same grounds stipulated in the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958. Conversely, award debtors in international arbitration proceedings seated outside of Israel may only file an objection to a motion to recognise and enforce an international arbitration.

Further, the ability to appeal an international arbitral award to an Israeli court was eliminated from the New Law, regardless of the seat of arbitration. That said, the New Law does not derogate from the parties' right to agree on a two-tier arbitration appeals mechanism.

Courts in Israel are generally inclined to enforce arbitral awards, and rarely revoke awards rendered in usual circumstances. The central variation in this respect is between non-international awards, which may be confirmed or revoked in accordance with the Arbitration Law, and international awards, which may be revoked (if seated in Israel), recognised, or objected to according to the International Commercial Arbitration Law, based on the same grounds stipulated in the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958.

The starting point when considering whether an arbitral award will be enforced is to consider the form of the award and whether it meets the requisite criteria for enforcement.

Non-international Awards

There are several criteria that must be met for a non-international arbitral award to be enforced. Namely, the award must be rendered by an arbitrator appointed by or under an arbitration agreement and must apply to a matter that can be subject to an arbitration agreement between the parties. For example, a matter that raises constitutional issues or issues relating to a person’s legal status - eg, whether one is married, whether one's adoption is legal - cannot be decided by an arbitrator and must be decided by the authorised court.

International Awards

In terms of enforcing an international award, a distinction is made depending on the seat of the arbitration. In arbitrations seated in Israel, an international arbitral award may be revoked under the grounds stipulated in Section 43 of the International Commercial Arbitration Law, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. With respect to all international arbitration awards (regardless of their seat) recognition and enforcement may be objected to based on the grounds in Section 45 of the New Law, which follows the grounds in Article 5 to the New York Convention (see 4.6 Challenging Enforcement of Arbitral Awards under International Awards for further detail on the various grounds for non-enforcement).

With respect to non-international arbitral awards, enforcement requires filing an application for confirmation to the appropriate court (ie, the court of competent jurisdiction according to the subject or value of the arbitration). The application is made under Article 23 of the Arbitration Act. This application may not be made ex parte. Once confirmed, the award is regarded as a judgment of the court, except for appeal proceedings where applicable.

The award debtor may move to revoke the arbitral award or to object to its confirmation within 45 days of the date on which the award was granted or within 15 days of the date on which the motion to confirm the award was served on him/her, according to the shorter period. This application must be based on one of the grounds specified in the Arbitration Law (see also 4.6 Challenging Enforcement of Arbitral Awards under Non-International Awards).

With respect to international arbitral awards, a request for recognition and enforcement is required under Article 44 of the International Arbitration Law. The award debtor may object based on the grounds listed in Section 45 to the New Law. With respect to international arbitrations seated in Israel, the award debtor may also request revocation of the award, in accordance with Article 43 of the New Law, within 90 days from the date on which the award was served on him/her, or within 90 days from the date on which the arbitral tribunal issued a decision on a party's motion to amend or interpret the award according to Section 42 to the New Law.

Moving to confirm an arbitral award is a relatively straightforward process. Costs and time will then depend on how quickly the court deals with the application and whether the opposing party applies to revoke or objects to the approval of the award.

If a response objecting to the approval of the arbitral award is not filed, the process should not take more than three to six months. If an objection (or a motion to revoke the arbitral award) is filed, and depending on the nature of the objection and its merits, the process may take a significantly longer period, potentially one to two years.

Non-international Awards

At the request of a party, a court may revoke an arbitral award or return it to the arbitrator in the following instances, where:

(1) no valid arbitration agreement was in place between the parties;

(2) the award was rendered by an arbitrator who was not duly appointed;

(3) the arbitrator acted without authority, or deviated from the specific authority granted in the arbitration agreement;

(4) a party to the arbitration was not given the proper chance to raise its claims or to provide its evidence;

(5) the arbitrator did not decide on one of the matters put forward for his/her decision;

(6) the arbitration agreement stipulated that the arbitrator must provide reason for his/her award, and he/she did not do so;

(7) the arbitration agreement stipulated that the arbitrator must decide according to the law, and he/she did not do so;

(8) the award was rendered after the period it could be rendered in;

(9) the award is contrary to public policy; or

(10) any cause that could be used to revoke a final, non-appealable judgment.

If a party’s application to revoke the arbitral award is denied, the arbitral award will be automatically approved by the court.

Furthermore, the award debtor may appeal the arbitral award, in accordance with the agreed appeal mechanism (Clause 29B of the Arbitration Act), as follows:

• If the parties agreed that the arbitrator must rule according to the law, they may agree (in advance - in the arbitration agreement) that the award will be appealable upon leave from the court, if the award errs fundamentally.
• Should leave to appeal be granted, the appeal will be heard according to the procedures applicable to an appeal on a court’s judgment.
• Alternatively, the parties may agree (also in advance as expressed in the arbitration agreement) that the award will be appealable to an arbitrator. Under this appeal mechanism, an application to revoke the award may only be based on the grounds stipulated in articles (9) and (10) listed above.

International Awards

In general, Israeli courts are bound to recognise international arbitral awards issued in an Israeli seat unless grounds for revoking and/or objecting to the award under Sections 43 and 45 of the New Law are found to exist. Similarly, Israeli courts are also bound to recognise international awards issued in a seat outside of Israel, unless any of the grounds for objecting to the award's approval under Section 45 of the New Law (which are based on Article 5 to the New York Convention) are substantiated. As mentioned above, the grounds for revoking and objecting to the approval of an award are similar, and include the following:

• a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity or the arbitration agreement was not valid;
• proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or the arbitration proceedings was not given (or the other party was otherwise unable to present their case);
• the award deals with issues not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration;
• the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, with the New International Commercial Arbitration Law (grounds for revocation) or with the law of the country where the arbitration took place (grounds for objection);

• the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent court located in the jurisdiction of which, or under the law of which, the award was made (this appears only in Article 45 (objection to enforcement) and not under Article 43 (revocation of an Award issued in Israel)); and

• the matter was not capable of settlement by way of arbitration or it would be contrary to public policy to recognise or enforce the award.