Plaintiff 3, Mr. Yaakov Horowitz, paid defendant 4 the sum of ILS 262,500, but received ILS 49,748 restitution from the ILA, as well as ILS 53,121 for the right to initiate. Therefore, defendants 1 and 4 must reimburse him ILS 159,631 together with linkage and interest differentials from the date the claim was filed until the date of actual payment.
Plaintiff No. 4, who transferred the venue of the hearing to Ariel Cohen, paid defendant No. 4 the sum of ILS 175,000, but received ILS 34,126 restitution from the ILA, as well as ILS 35,436 for the right to initiate. Therefore, defendants 1 and 4 must reimburse him ILS 105,438 together with linkage differences and interest from the date of filing the claim until the date of actual payment.
Plaintiff No. 5, who transferred Avishai Junger's hearing venue, paid defendant 4 the sum of ILS 262,500, but received ILS 49,748 restitution from the ILA, as well as ILS 53,121 for the right to initiate. Therefore, defendants 1 and 4 must reimburse him ILS 159,631 together with linkage and interest differentials from the date the claim was filed until the date of actual payment.
Plaintiff 6, Mr. Banya Sidon, paid defendant 4 the sum of ILS 262,500, but received ILS 51,189 restitution from the ILA, as well as ILS 53,152 for the right to initiate. Therefore, defendants 1 and 4 must reimburse him ILS 158,159, together with linkage differences and interest from the date of filing the claim until the date of actual payment.
Plaintiff 7, Ms. Carmit Shimoni Cohen, paid defendant 4 the sum of ILS 120,000, but received ILS 33,165 restitution from the ILA, as well as ILS 35,414 for the right to initiate. Therefore, defendants 1 and 4 must return ILS 51,421 to her, together with linkage differences and interest from the date of filing the claim until the date of actual payment.
Expenses of the Proceeding
This lawsuit has been ongoing since 2018. The nature and comfortable temperament of the plaintiffs' counsel on the one hand, and the transfer of the Goren hearing venue on the other, did not prevent them from making unreasonable use of the submission of many requests, responses and "notices", as if the court file was a tool in their hands to do as they saw fit.