Civil Appeal 27360-10-15 Zandorf: customer's appeal dismissed, NIS 84,733 debt to Mizrahi Tefahot stands

What this page is based on

This page is based on the full text of the judgment in Civil Appeal 27360-10-15, as published on a law firm's website. We did not find the judgment on the courts' website. The Magistrates' Court judgment itself was not found, and the details about it are taken from its description in the appeal judgment.

Background: the bank's summary-procedure debt claim

The judgment was given on 14 August 2016 by the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court, sitting as a court of civil appeals, by Judge Ruth Lavhar Sharon. The appellant is Giora Zandorf, a customer of the Ramat Aviv branch of Mizrahi Tefahot Bank. The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Magistrates' Court (Judge Ilan Dafadi) in Civil Claim 171160/09 of 10.8.2015.

According to the judgment, in August 2009 the bank filed a claim under summary procedure, alleging that the debit balance in the account stood at NIS 84,733 as of 8.6.2009. The customer was given leave to defend on condition of a cash deposit of NIS 70,000. The amount was not deposited, and judgment was given against him. In an earlier appeal (Civil Appeal 52366-05-10, Judge Ginat) that judgment was set aside on condition of a deposit of NIS 30,000, and the claim was heard on its merits.

The Magistrates' Court granted the claim in full and ordered the customer to pay NIS 84,733, plus interest at 10.65% from the date the claim was filed, and NIS 35,000 in legal costs. According to the judgment, the court found that the customer had caused the proceedings to drag on.

What each side argued

The customer argued that he had two accounts: in the current account a fee of NIS 8 per transaction was charged, while in the options account, he claimed, NIS 10 was charged without justification. He claimed an oral agreement for a fee of NIS 7–8 for trading Tel Aviv Stock Exchange options. He also argued that the bank unlawfully charged an exercise fee of 0.5% when options expired, and charged high fees for managing a securities deposit and on loans. He further argued that the bank had not proved the amount of the debt, and that his request for disclosure of the fee documents had been wrongly refused.

The bank argued that the appeal was directed at findings of fact, that the case was one of "admission and avoidance" so the burden lay on the customer, and that the printout of account transactions, being an institutional record, was enough to prove the debt.

What the District Court decided

The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the customer did not dispute the amount of the debt but raised set-off defences, and that he himself had written, in an application to amend his defence, that this was "a set-off claim, which is a type of admission and avoidance". The burden of proving those defences was therefore his. According to the judgment, his affidavit was "thin" and was not supported by any further evidence. The oral agreement on fees was not proved, and the court noted that the customer knew the fees were being charged and had even complained about them.

The court also rejected the argument that the bank had not proved the amount of the debt, citing case law holding that account transaction printouts are an institutional record admissible as prima facie evidence of their contents. The court made no further order for costs on appeal, "beyond the strict letter of the law", and ruled that if the debt had not yet been paid, a deposit of NIS 10,000 would be transferred to the bank on account of the debt.

What it means for customers

The judgment shows the risk of defending a bank's debt claim with set-off arguments alone. A customer who does not deny the debt bears the burden of proving his arguments, and his own testimony without documents may not be enough. It is worth keeping fee agreements in writing and asking for the fee schedule and a breakdown of the fees charged. This is a District Court appeal judgment decided on its facts, not a general rule on fees. Related guides: objection to execution of a bill and fixed-sum claims and enforcement proceedings against the bank.

Sources

• Civil Appeal 27360-10-15 Zandorf v. Mizrahi Tefahot Bank, full text of the judgment (Hebrew, law firm website)

Frequently asked questions about court rulings against Mizrahi Tefahot Bank

Source grade: Full text, verified. This article was written from the text of the decision itself.

Verified against the full text of the judgment, published on a law firm's website (not on the courts' website). Judge Ruth Lavhar Sharon. No further costs were awarded on appeal. The sources we opened contain no information on an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Sources

1. https://ygoldlaw.co.il/litigation-lawyer/ruling/%D7%A6%D7%A0%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A3-%D7%A0-%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%9E%D7%96/

How to cite

Civil Appeal 27360-10-15 Giora Zandorf v. Mizrahi Tefahot Bank Ltd (appeal against Civil Claim 171160/09, Tel Aviv-Jaffa Magistrates' Court, Judge Ilan Dafadi, 10.8.2015), Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court (civil appeal), 14.08.2016. Source: Net HaMishpat (Israeli courts database), case Civil Appeal 27360-10-15 Giora Zandorf v. Mizrahi Tefahot Bank Ltd (appeal against Civil Claim 171160/09, Tel Aviv-Jaffa Magistrates' Court, Judge Ilan Dafadi, 10.8.2015).