A judge gave a judgment that is almost impossible to appeal.
Then he did something the Supreme Court criticized: he explained it.
It was precisely that explanation that reversed the outcome.
The background: in a civil proceeding, the parties can agree that the judge will decide "by way of compromise", under section 79A of the Courts Law.
This is not a settlement agreement between the parties. They simply hand the decision to the judge, and he sets an outcome that seems just to him, without being bound by the law.
The price: the default is that such a judgment is given without reasons. An appeal against it is accepted only in rare cases, for example when the judge went beyond what the parties agreed, or when the outcome is extremely unreasonable.
The case: a member of Kibbutz Sdot Yam sued the kibbutz after eight points of her housing entitlement were deducted.
Under the housing bylaws, a member who did not earn a living "up to half a year" in the last five years is entitled to a full apartment.
The parties agreed that the District Court would decide by way of compromise, and did not ask for reasons.
The judge nevertheless wrote a detailed judgment. He found that she had not earned a living for exactly half a year, and still deducted three points.
The Supreme Court unanimously accepted the appeal. Under the Interpretation Law, "up to" means "up to and including". Exactly half a year falls within the first tier, so no points are deducted.
But the important sentence in the judgment is a different one.
Justice Grosskopf wrote that when a judge is authorized to rule by compromise without reasons, "the judge would do well to refrain from giving them", because "whoever adds, detracts". The reasoning opens the "black box" of considerations and creates an opening for appeal.
And the Supreme Court added: had the judge simply weighed the parties' chances and set three points without explanation, it could not have been reviewed, even if a correct interpretation of the bylaws leads to a different outcome.
The plaintiff won here because the judge said more than he was asked to.
Usually, whoever chooses this route gets an outcome, not an explanation. And when there is no explanation, there is almost nothing to appeal.