Stuck for 10 days in Dubai: what compensation will they receive from El Al?
The court allowed a landowner to sell his share despite the opposition of partners who claimed that waiting for the renewal plan would increase the property's value. Passengers whose flight with El Al was cancelled due to the war will receive only partial reimbursement for their expenses abroad. And a spouse who claimed to have invested hundreds of thousands of shekels of his own money in the shared apartment will not get them back upon separation. 3 court rulings of the week.
About the section
This section collects interesting court rulings published recently. We select rulings in core economic areas from which one can learn principled lessons or which can serve our readers in their business. For each ruling, we provide a summary and the meaning of the verdict. 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
A landowner wanted to sell, the partners opposed, and the court decided
Verdict in brief: A couple claimed they were of advanced age and therefore asked to sell the land. The other rights holders claimed they would be harmed. The court ruled in favor of the couple, arguing that every partner can petition for the dissolution of the partnership.
A group of people holding rights in a plot in Givatayim in unspecified shares ("musha") was divided on whether to dissolve the partnership. The real estate spans half a dunam and is included in a master plan for urban renewal. A couple holding rights filed a lawsuit in the Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court to dissolve the partnership, asking to sell the rights to the highest bidder rather than waiting for the plan's approval.
The other rights holders claimed that selling now would cause economic damage because building rights are limited, and if the plan is approved, it will be possible to maximize the consideration. They also noted that they approached the couple to buy their share, but were rejected.
Judge Guy Forer accepted the lawsuit, noting that the Real Estate Law establishes a principle according to which it is the right of every partner to petition for the dissolution of the partnership "at any time". Exceptions exist only if an agreement limits the right or if the request is tainted by bad faith. In this case, no such agreement exists.
The court determined that a claim that the value may rise in the future is not enough to prevent dissolution. While case law allows for delaying the process to promote a plan, the delay must be temporary and proportionate. The judge determined that the rights in the building will be sold to the highest bidder through a receiver.
Meaning of the verdict: It is the right of a partner in real estate to dissolve the partnership, even if the value potential has not yet been exhausted.
Case number: 28801-04-24
Israelis stuck for 10 days in Dubai because of the war – what compensation will El Al pay?
Verdict in brief: A couple's flight with El Al was cancelled due to Operation "Lion's Roar" in March, and they were forced to fly with a foreign company only after 10 days. The court determined they would receive only part of their expenses as the situation was not under the airline's control.
A couple, whose flight from Dubai to Israel on March 2, 2026, was cancelled, filed a lawsuit in the Small Claims Court in Bat Yam against El Al. They asked for a refund for loss of income, the cost of their stay in Dubai, and compensation for mental anguish.
El Al claimed the cancellation was forced upon it and it did everything in its power to return Israelis to the country. The judge, Shar Sander Makover, determined that the couple is entitled to partial compensation, as there is no legal entitlement to compensation for loss of income and mental anguish. The court accepted the airline's claims that the cancellation was a result of the war.
The court checked the receipts and determined that expenses for a hair salon or clothing would not be reimbursed. The Aviation Services Law details "assistance services" that must be provided: food, drinks, a hotel, and transport. The court determined the couple is entitled to only two nights in accordance with the law. El Al was ordered to pay the couple 5,677 shekels for the hotel, food, and travel, and about 900 shekels in expense reimbursement.
Meaning of the verdict: In the case of a flight cancellation due to an emergency situation not dependent on the airline, the passenger will receive a refund only for the first two nights.
Case number: 76440-03-26
The spouse invested hundreds of thousands in the shared apartment. Is he entitled to receive them upon separation?
Verdict in brief: The Family Court in Ashdod determined that the property of a couple married for five years will be divided equally. The court did not accept the man's position, who claimed he was entitled to more money for the apartment because he invested his own funds.
A couple purchased an apartment in Ashkelon registered as joint ownership. The man claimed he was entitled to the return of 300,000 shekels invested from external sources and another 300,000 shekels lent to the wife's father. The wife claimed she was entitled to 60% of social rights and shares due to income gaps.
Judge Hilla Ohayon Glicksman determined that the economic rights will be divided equally. She argued that even if part of the man's equity was used to purchase the apartment, this does not justify dividing the asset in unequal parts, as they registered the apartment in equal parts without a prenuptial agreement. The wife was also not granted more than half of the social rights, as she is expected to receive a significant net amount.
Meaning of the verdict: Even if a party in a relationship contributed money to purchase a shared home, they will not necessarily be entitled to offset the amount upon separation.
Case number: 37228-02-24
