Members of a family claimed that their former lawyer had signed, in their name and without their knowledge, a settlement requiring them to vacate land in Jerusalem, and asked to stop the eviction and demolition until their claim to cancel the judgment was decided. The Supreme Court refused because of delay, misleading information and a balance of convenience that did not favour them, but the claim itself continues in the District Court.
What happened
In 2018, holders of rights in land in Jerusalem sued to evict a family and other defendants, claiming they had trespassed on the plot. Among other things, they asked for the demolition of part of the family's house, which was built mostly on the neighbouring plot but "spilled over" onto the disputed one, and of a storeroom. On 7.6.2022 the Magistrates' Court ordered the eviction of all the defendants and the demolition of all structures on the plot.
The family appealed to the District Court, limiting the appeal to the part of the house only. On 4.7.2023, two days before the hearing, a notice of settlement was filed, signed by the family's lawyer and by the rights holders' lawyer. It provided that the family would vacate the plot and demolish all construction on it by 27.12.2023, imposed a permanent injunction and set financial compensation if the eviction did not happen on time. The same day the settlement was given the force of a judgment.
The claim to cancel the settlement and the request for interim relief
On 1.10.2026 the family filed a claim in the District Court to cancel the consent judgment. It said it had not signed the settlement, had not agreed to it, did not know about it and had not authorised the lawyer to settle, and that it learned the appeal was over only in June 2026, when notices arrived from the Enforcement Office about eviction and demolition proceedings. At the same time it asked for an order barring any dealings in the rights to the plot and stopping the eviction and demolition.
The rights holders objected. They explained that some of the rights had already passed to others, and that in 2026 a combination agreement had been signed with a developer to build a housing project on the plot, with removal of the occupants an essential condition. According to them, more than ILS 17 million in equity had been invested in the project, which is financed by credit of about ILS 10 million that could become immediately repayable if construction is delayed. They added that the part of the house had been demolished by family members themselves back in September 2024, and that only an abandoned storeroom remained. The family's representative, a lawyer by profession, had written to the lawyer as early as 2024 that she had discovered the appeal was over and demanded the return of the deposit.
On 16.10.2026 the District Court refused the request, because the current rights holders had not been joined, because of delay and doubts about good faith, and because the family had in practice acted on the settlement by demolishing the construction. It only ordered a stay of the financial obligations under the consent judgment.
The Supreme Court's decision
The family applied for leave to appeal, with the eviction set for 3.11.2026. It argued, among other things, that the power of attorney required the lawyer to get its prior written approval for any settlement, that he misled it into thinking the appeal had succeeded, and that it made no sense to stay the financial obligation without staying the eviction.
The Supreme Court refused the application without even asking the other side to respond. It noted that an appeal court interferes with decisions on interim relief only in exceptional cases, and that alongside the prospects of the claim and the balance of convenience, which is the more important factor, the court also looks at good faith and at when the request was filed (Regulation 95(d)(3) of the Civil Procedure Regulations). Here every factor worked against the family:
- Delay: even on its own version, the family knew of the judgment in June 2026 and waited four months. Demolishing the house in 2024 shows that it already knew then that it had to vacate. The application for leave to appeal was also filed only a few days before the eviction date.
- Misleading information: the family said two of its members lived on the plot with their children, but one of them had declared in insolvency proceedings that on 15.9.2024 he demolished his home of his own free will and left the place for good. No explanation was given for the contradiction.
- Balance of convenience: delaying the project could cause significant harm to rights holders who are not parties to the case. By contrast, the part of the house had already been vacated and demolished more than two years earlier, and the family pointed to no other interest in the plot that could not be compensated with money if it wins its claim.
The outcome
The application for leave to appeal and the request for interim relief were dismissed, with no costs because no response had been requested. The Supreme Court ruled only on interim relief and did not examine the prospects of the claim. The claim to cancel the consent judgment, including the argument that the lawyer signed without authority, will continue to be heard on its merits in the District Court.
Key takeaways
- Even if your lawyer settled in your name without consent, act as soon as you find out. A delay of months can decide the matter against you.
- Before you hire a lawyer, make sure the power of attorney requires your prior written approval for any settlement, and ask for regular updates on the case.
- What you declare in one case will be checked in another. Contradictory affidavits damage your credibility and your chances of getting interim relief.
- If you acted on a settlement, for example by demolishing the structure, it will be hard to claim later that you did not know about it or did not agree to it.
- A request to stop an eviction is judged mainly by the harm to each side. If the structure is already gone and the loss can be compensated with money, an interim order is hard to get.
This article summarizes a published Israeli court decision in plain language and is not legal advice. Every case depends on its facts. The parties' names have been omitted. This is a first-instance decision and may be appealed.
