It is also worth emphasizing that the amount that I have ruled above in favor of the plaintiffs is disproportionate to the amount claimed by them in the amended statement of claim. Therefore, exposing the defendants to such a significant amount of claim, when it was found that there was no basis for it, requires a corresponding consideration of the matter in the framework of the costs ruling.
As for defendants 1 and 4 - the transfer of the venue Goren, as his friend counsel for the plaintiffs, did not stand idly by, and made sure to respond time and time again to every matter that arose in the proceeding, small or large, more or less relevant. The multitude of requests and "notices" on the part of the attorney for the transfer of Goren's hearing place, in order to set the record straight, became his lot at every stage of the proceeding (see, for example, "A Brief Reference to the Response of Adv. Weiss", who filed a motion to move Goren's hearing place on September 29, 2025, without being given permission to do so).
In this context, I will not enumerate all the decisions that were required in order to fend off unjustified motions by defendants 1 and 4. As an example that does not indicate the rule, I would like to refer to my decision of July 21, 2024, in which I rejected the request of defendants 1 and 4 to appoint a handwriting expert after the evidentiary hearings had concluded, after a similar request had already been rejected by me in a decision of July 1, 2024.
In addition, I will note that defendants 1 and 4 filed a counterclaim (hereinafter: the "Counter-Plaintiffs") in the matter of defamation against defendants 1 and 2 (hereinafter: "the Counter-Defendants"). In my decision of June 16, 2025, I recommended to defendants 1 and 4 to consider whether they are still standing on the counterclaim. This is in light of the fact that in the course of conducting the proceeding, they completely abandoned this claim. No evidence was submitted regarding the alleged defamation allegations, and the counter-defendants were not questioned about it. In addition, even in the counter-statement of claim, the counter-plaintiffs made do with general allegations against the counter-defendants, including that "they told various people in Israel and abroad that they had harsh words and slander, and called them thieves, liars, cheaters, and other things that paper does not tolerate..." (Paragraph 50 of the Statement of Counterclaim). The counter-plaintiffs did not specify as required who the interlocutors of the counter-defendants were, when exactly what was said, what was the exact wording that was said to each of the interlocutors, and under what circumstances the words were said. The counter-plaintiffs further claimed that Ms. Vyshevsky called the office of the attorney who moved the place of the Goren hearing and heard "defamatory and defamatory words in the ears of the firm's staff, as well as severe insults and threats that she would persecute the plaintiff, take his life, harass him, harm him, damage his good name.." (ibid., section 54). In this context as well, the plaintiffs did not specify against whom the "firm staff" was allegedly heard, and in any event, they did not attach affidavits on behalf of the relevant parties from the office of the Goren Hearing Attorney in order to testify to the alleged contents of the statements. The counter-plaintiffs also claimed that the counter-defendants "spoke with various brokers and entities in the city of Ashkelon and also in London, where they lived, and constantly defamed plaintiff 1 in front of them" (ibid., paragraph 55). It was not specified who those "intermediaries and various parties" were, what exactly they were told, and when. Nor were affidavits attached by those parties. Above all, given the amorphousness of the statement, it is clear that it has not been proven that the matter amounts to slander.