The witness, Prof. M. Echo: Anonymous
Adv. Dr. Tal Rotman: Nope.
The witness, Prof. M. Echo: I didn't know about them until now.
Adv. Dr. Tal Rotman: You didn't know about them, I mean You don't know about the four guys, you know a thing and a half about them.
The witness, Prof. M. Echo: Nope.
Adv. Dr. Tal Rotman: And if you were to examine them, would you be able to get an opinion on their mental state in light of your expertise?
The witness, Prof. M. Echo: If they agreed, yes.
(pp. 1175-1176).
- The odor hazard that was claimed alternatively was also not proven, as detailed above.
- It appears from the compilation that the applicants did not have a personal cause of action, and in its absence and even for this reason, the application for approval should be rejected.
(See also: Class Action (Tel Aviv) 38526-03-22 Zion Habib v. A.M.A.A. (Published in Nevo, 16 November 2025, section 79).
Ruling on expenses in the proceeding
- In their summaries, the applicants' counsel referred to a situation in which their request would be approved, in which case the court was asked to award them fees "at the rate that it deems appropriate" and the court was even asked to "calculate the proposed fees at the rate of 20% + from a tax appeal from the value of the total relief to be awarded" (ibid., section 23 k).
- Alternatively, and to the extent that the motion for approval is rejected, counsel for the Applicants referred to the article by Prof. Alon Clement "The Boundaries of the Class Action in Mass Torts," Mishpatim 34 (2004), at p. 374. The extreme economic power gap between the parties was emphasized, and it was argued that the respondents, by virtue of the principle of "polluter pays", must bear the costs related to the pollution. The court was asked to refrain from awarding the respondents costs.
- In their summaries, the Respondents are of the opinion that the Applicants should be charged for their real expenses or alternatively for exemplary expenses. The Respondents claim that the Applicants filed a motion to certify a class action, which is sloppy and lacks any legal or factual basis or expertise. The Respondents justify their demand for a award of real costs on the grounds that the Applicants conducted themselves in a "flawed procedural" manner, which caused the hearing to be complicated and led to a long delay in hearing the proceeding, which caused them heavy damages (see paragraphs 689-696 of their summaries).
- The respondents did not present to the court a reference regarding all of their expenses in the trial. It should be noted that during the interrogation of the experts on behalf of the respondents, data regarding their fees arose.
The normative outline as a whole
- The rule is that the ruling on legal expenses is left to the very broad discretion of the trial court, which has before its eyes the totality of the circumstances of the dispute, the conduct of the parties throughout the trial, and the other factors affecting the determination of fees and expenses (see Civil Appeal 9535/04 "Bialik 10" faction v. "Yesh Atid La-Bialik" faction, IsrSC 60(1) 391; Uri Goren, "Issues in Civil Procedure" of 10, 2009 745) (see also Civil Appeal 2617/00 Kinneret Quarries v. Local Planning and Building Committee, Nazareth Illit, IsrSC 60(1) 600, 615); High Court of Justice 891/05, Civil Appeal 2617/00 Tnuva Cooperative Center and Kinneret Quarries v. The Agreed Authority for Granting Import Licenses et al. and the Local Planning and Building Committee of Nazareth Illit et al. (published in Nevo, 30 June 2005); Regulation 511 (a) of the Ordinance 5111 (a) of the Civil Code).
Awarding Costs in a Class Action
- Other Municipal Requests 7928/12 R. M Technologies inTax Appeal v. Partner Communications in a Tax Appeal (published in Nevo, January 22, 2015), it was held, inter alia, that:
The class action instrument is a procedural instrument in which the interests of the general public are supposed to be represented. The protection of these interests is entrusted by the court. As part of the aspiration to preserve and promote the use of the class action device, the court must act with moderation when charging the expenses of applicants whose application has been rejected (for more on the issue of the importance of class actions and their barriers, including economic barriers, see: Assaf Fink, "Class Actions as a Tool for Social Change," Ma'asei Mishpat, vol. 6, 157 (2014)). Insofar as this is not a frivolous claim that was filed in bad faith, I am of the opinion that there is room to refrain from imposing expenses that may deter potential plaintiffs from attempting to protect public interests (for a similar position, see: The Allsale Case, in paragraph 7 of the judgment of Justice A. Hayut).
- In another civil hearing 944/15 Pelephone Communications in a tax appeal v. E.R.M. Technologies Ltd. (published in Nevo, March 29, 2015), it was held, inter alia:
It is not possible to understand from the judgment [Civil Appeal 7928/12 E. R. M Technologies inTax Appeal v. Partner Communications in a Tax Appeal - D.H. stated that in any case in which a class action was filed in good faith and rejected, there is room to refrain from imposing costs in order not to deter potential class plaintiffs. It is true that this court called for moderation when the court comes to charge the expenses of applicants whose application was rejected (see also similar words by Justice A. Hayut in the Allsail case, paragraph 7). The class action is an important procedural tool that "enables consumers to join together to realize the right of access to the courts of each of them, and to sue for damages caused to them by commercial entities, while balancing the differences in material power between the parties when they come to conduct the proceeding" (Civil Appeal 1509/04 Danush v. Chrysler Corporation, para. 15 (November 22, 2007)). Indeed, care must be taken against the abuse of the procedure for filing frivolous claims that have no factual or legal basis against defendants with a "deep pocket" and are filed in bad faith. One of the ways, as stated, is to impose real costs on a class plaintiff whose application was denied.