On November 30, 2022, the plaintiffs requested once again that the court reconsider its decision of November 7, 2022. In my decision of December 7, 2022, I reviewed the various motions and decisions that were given in this matter, while noting that the remedy for a party who is not satisfied with a judicial decision cannot be by way of filing additional motions for the purpose of changing the decision. In any event, it was clarified - and this is clearly evident from the Supreme Court's decision of December 30, 2021 - that no procedural arrangement between the parties was perfected. I also noted that it would have been appropriate for the plaintiffs, through their counsel, to refrain from improper claiMs. Counsel for the plaintiffs had already apologized in the past for the terminology he used (a statement he filed on February 21, 2022), and it is regrettable that his thoughts continued to find their way towards the pleadings.
The plaintiffs did not accept my decision of December 7, 2022. Thus, while ignoring even the decision given by me on October 11, 2021, and as if the request for leave to appeal they submitted to the Supreme Court on the matter was not rejected (decision of December 30, 2021 in Civil Appeal 7396/21), this time the plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit in the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court to determine that the same procedural arrangement between the parties had been perfected (T.A. 40284-12-22). In the meantime, on December 21, 2022, they petitioned to order a stay of the proceedings in this lawsuit, while postponing all evidentiary hearings until a decision is made on the other lawsuit they filed in the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court. In my decision on the same day, I rejected the request (for the sake of completeness, it should be noted that the claim filed by the plaintiffs in the Magistrate's Court was dismissed out of hand in a judgment of July 24, 2023, while charging the plaintiffs expenses in the sum of ILS 10,000).
Between me and me, the plaintiffs announced that they had filed an application for leave to appeal my decision of November 7, 2022 (Civil Appeal Authority 8977/22). In the framework of the decision given in the application for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that "this is a repetition of the same matter - which was discussed, and decided; and it is liable to be rejected for all the reasons detailed, again and again, both by this court and by the trial court. Even on the merits of the arguments, there is no room to accede to them" (paragraph 10 of the decision). It was also held that "as to the Applicants' arguments regarding the existence of a procedural agreement, the approval of which is requested, these were also discussed, and rejected, by both courts, in a reasoned manner" (ibid., paragraph 11). Regarding the expenses, the Honorable Supreme Court added, "... With regard to the obligation of the Applicants to pay expenses for the benefit of the State Treasury, after I have considered and reversed the matter - before and beyond the letter of the law, I have refrained from doing so. This is despite the fact that the applicants' conduct creates a real burden on the courts, while destroying public resources and valuable time. The trial court acted with great patience while continuing to discuss, on their merits, the same repeated motions, on the same matter. However, it seems to me that this is sufficient" (paragraph 13 of the decision).