Man Fined Record Sum for Repeatedly Trying to Disqualify Judge
Translated & summarized from Bizportal by baba
The Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit has ordered a man to pay NIS 28,000 in legal costs for filing three unsuccessful appeals to disqualify Ashdod Family Court Judge Rami Bazha. The man alleged bias due to Bazha's rulings and public statements. Amit rejected the appeals, citing delays, factual inaccuracies, and the man's repeated attempts to disqualify the judge. The cumulative costs are reportedly the highest ever awarded in such cases.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- A man was ordered to pay NIS 28,000 in legal costs for three failed appeals to disqualify a judge.
- Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit issued the cost orders over 18 months.
- The man alleged bias by Family Court Judge Rami Bazha in ongoing property disputes.
- Amit cited delays, factual inaccuracies, and the ease of raising disqualification claims.
- The cumulative costs are reportedly the highest ever awarded in such cases.
A man has been ordered to pay a cumulative total of NIS 28,000 (approximately $7,500) in legal costs after repeatedly attempting to disqualify a family court judge in Ashdod, Rami Bazha. The unprecedented sum was levied over a year and a half by Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit, who rejected three separate appeals filed by the man. Typically, such disqualification requests are dismissed without costs, or with only a few thousand shekels in extreme cases. Judge Bazha also imposed costs on the man in the lower court.
The man is involved in ongoing property disputes with his ex-wife. After Judge Bazha issued a partial ruling against him in January 2025, the man sought the judge's disqualification, alleging Bazha had published articles and rulings related to the case, indicating a prejudged stance and personal interest. He also claimed Bazha delivered a professional lecture on the day of the partial ruling that supported his own case's outcome, suggesting bias.
Amit dismissed the appeals, noting that some claims were filed with significant delay and only after unfavorable rulings. He characterized the man's requests as reflecting "the unbearable ease" with which disqualification claims are raised, particularly against family court judges, often based on unsubstantiated or contrary-to-fact allegations. Amit fined the man NIS 8,000 for one appeal.
Over the following months, the man continued to file requests to disqualify Bazha and transfer the case, also submitting further evidence and challenging expert testimony. Amit rejected these requests in January of this year, again citing factual inaccuracies in the man's claims and stating there was no objective basis for disqualification or case transfer. He fined the man NIS 10,000 for one of these appeals.
In the most recent instance, Amit rejected a third disqualification request last week, after Bazha heard additional evidence. Amit ruled that the man failed to justify the late submission of evidence and that it did not alter the partial ruling. He fined the man NIS 50,000, stating that procedural decisions, even if unfavorable, do not inherently constitute grounds for a judge's disqualification. Amit concluded that the judge should be presumed to continue the proceedings with an open mind.