Adv. Gill Nadel, Adv. Omer Wagner
The facts of the case and the claims of the parties:
A customs’ agent filed an action for around 230,000 NIS against the Markel Stav Corporation (importers) for an alleged debt for customs agency services, credit, and financing. The action was also filed against two guarantors for the importer's alleged debt. According to the customs agent, the importer and the guarantors of his debt signed an agreement according to which a monthly interest of prime + 1.5% was to be payed , if any delay in refunding the loans he received occured. The action was originally filed in an abbreviated procedure - a procedure for financial actions for set fees based on a written document, which is concluded in a faster process.
The importer claimed that from the state of claims, it appears that approximately half of the debt relates to excessive interest and various fees which the customs’ agent charged, such as a fee for granting credit, a fee for returned checks, while all along it is unclear what was the basis for setting the extent of the fees/interests.
The importer claimed that the relation between the parties lasted around 4 years, from 2005 to 2009, and that only in 2009 when he got into financial difficulties did the problems begin.
The importer categorically objected to the interest rates which the customs’ agent demanded and argued that they are excessive and extreme and even forbidden under the statutes relating the interest.
The importer further claimed that in order to resolve this case mathematical calculations will be needed, and therefore the action is not eligible to be litigated in an abbreviated procedure and it should be transferred to the regular procedures.
The Court's Decision:
On the question of this case's eligibility to be discussed in the abbreviated procedure, the court noted the following – since a writ of agreement signed by the importer and the guarantors, and the customs agents bookkeeping index and checks were all filed with the court, there are sufficient evidence to continue the action in an abbreviated procedure.
The court noted that in the writ of agreement, it was stated that the importer and his guarantors would bear interest of prime + 1% each month, or interest on overdue payment of prime + 1.5% per month (if indeed there’s a delay).and that these interest rates deviate from the statutes relating to interest. On this issue, the court noted that when a contract violates the law, such as a contract in which there is "pre-determined interest", the court has the power to void it, but will only do so in exceptional circumstances. In any case, the court noted that there is no reason to prevent the importer from presenting at this stage an opposing opinion supporting his claim that the interest is excessive and unfair, and allow this claim will be determined for itself.
In light of all the above, the court accepted the petition of the importer and allowed him to file a petition against the action, so that the question of whether the interest charged was excessive or illegal can be discussed in court but without obliging any of the parties to pay the expenses of the petition.
(Registrar Tsachi Almog, 25847-02-10 Eilat Gatefort Noga (1982) Ltd. v. Markel Stav Ltd. et al, decision given 20.10.10, names of advocates not noted in decision).
עדכוני מכס ורגולציה
