Neighbors asked to block the access path. The court found an interim solution
A prenuptial agreement that left the husband without rights to two apartments was canceled after the court determined it was signed while exploiting his distress. The Civil Aviation Authority was ordered to compensate a pilot who was fired without a hearing. In a dispute over a shared access path in Safed, it was determined that the neighbors are allowed to cancel the right of passage, but must participate in the cost of widening the path. 3 court rulings for the week.
About the section
This section collects interesting court rulings published recently. We choose rulings in core economic areas from which one can learn something principled or which can serve our readers in their occupations. For each ruling, we provide a summary and the meaning of the ruling. The case number allows those who wish to delve deeper to read the original. You are welcome to send us interesting court rulings to the email nitsan-s@globes.co.il
The court canceled a prenuptial agreement that gave all assets to the wife
Ruling in short: The court exceptionally canceled a prenuptial agreement due to the duress of the husband who signed it to avoid divorce.
The Family Court in Jerusalem last week canceled a prenuptial agreement even though it was approved as required. A Haredi couple, parents of four who had been married for 28 years, divorced. The agreement was signed about a decade before the separation and determined that the rights to the residential apartment and an additional apartment would all be owned by the wife, and that the husband would pay alimony of 9,500 shekels, even though he earned 6,200 shekels. The agreement also determined that each party would remain with their own bank account and social and pension rights, at a time when the husband did not hold an account and the family fund was managed from the wife's account.
The husband claimed the agreement should be canceled due to duress, stating he signed it because the wife exploited his distress and the terms were unreasonably bad. The wife claimed the husband knew what he was signing and that he was in debt and involved with the underworld. Judge Orit Ben Dor Libel determined that the agreement constituted duress. The wife exploited his fear of divorce, conditioning the continuation of the relationship on the signing. The judge ruled that the agreement was one-sided, leaving the husband without assets. Following the cancellation, the husband will receive half the rights to the apartments, and the wife was ordered to pay him 70,000 shekels in legal expenses.
Meaning: An agreement can be canceled in an exceptional case due to duress if it is proven that it was created as a result of unreasonably bad exploitation.
Case number: 515556-03-24
Without a hearing: The Civil Aviation Authority will pay compensation to a pilot fired unlawfully
Ruling in short: The court determined that the firing from an airline was done without a factual basis and without a hearing against the background of strained relations.
The Magistrate's Court in Tel Aviv ordered the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to pay about 300,000 shekels to a pilot who served as "Operations Manager" at the Tamir Aviation company. The CAA had demanded the airline stop the pilot's employment, claiming he lacked the necessary skills, forcing the airline to comply to protect its license.
The pilot filed a tort claim, arguing the CAA acted out of personal revenge due to professional disputes. Judge Ronen Ilan determined that the Authority's decision was made in contradiction to the principles of natural justice and administrative law. "The CAA chose to take a draconian measure without justification, with indifference to the dramatic results for the plaintiff," the judge determined. The plaintiff was awarded 150,000 shekels for lost work, 45,000 shekels for non-pecuniary damage, and 90,000 shekels in attorney's fees.
Meaning: An administrative body seeking to remove a person from his position is required to prove a well-founded factual basis and allow him a proper opportunity to voice his arguments.
Case number: 8682-07-20
Neighbors fought over the use of the shared access path
Ruling in short: The court was required to decide whether a wall would be built that would prevent the use of an access path shared by two plots in Safed.
A landowner in Safed filed a lawsuit against her neighbors to prevent them from fencing their plot with a wall that would block the shared path. The District Court in Nazareth determined that the plaintiff had a right of passage established in the purchase agreement. However, it also determined that the defendants had legitimate reasons to cancel the shared use due to strained relations and friction.
Judge Einav Golomb determined that the proper balance is the cancellation of the plaintiff's right of passage on the shared path, provided that she widens the path at the expense of her own area. The neighbors were ordered to pay half of the renovation costs (26,000 shekels out of 52,000) because they were the ones requesting to change the existing state of rights.
Meaning: It is possible to cancel an easement on a shared area by virtue of an agreement, in a balance between rights and while requiring payments.
Case number: 19778-07-22
