As for the procedural conduct, in the 27 I discussed above the difficulties raised by the defendants' procedural conduct at various stages of the proceeding.
- In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that each party should be ordered to bear its own expenses.
- The parties will notify by January 21, 2026 whether they have reached an agreement regarding the amount of the debt as of the date of the judgment, in accordance with the aforesaid (and without derogating from the arguments of each party regarding the judgment on its merits). In the absence of notice, the expert will be asked to calculate the amount of the debt in accordance with the aforesaid, while the parties will bear the costs in equal parts, and will provide him with any documents required for the calculation. Afterwards, a supplementary judgment will be rendered.
- The judgment can be appealed within sixty days.
Granted today, December 24, 2025, in the absence of the parties.
[1] The second agreement does not explicitly determine the "completion date of the project", but in clause 2.2.3.2 it is stated that the date of receipt of the occupancy approval is "the completion of the project", and it is reasonable to assume that the reference is to that stage.
[2] The defendants claimed that the arrangement of the financing was on the day on which the lien was registered in their favor, i.e., September 1, 2015 (see, for example, page 15 of the transcript of the hearing of September 18, 2025). However, this argument was not clarified, since according to the second agreement, the registration of the lien was not a prerequisite for financing (it should be noted that the court-appointed expert, who was appointed in the proceeding as detailed below, was also of the opinion that the date was May 12, 2015, see paragraph 59 of the opinion).
[3] It should be noted that the invoice also includes a reference to additional debts, which are not the subject of the claim. Admittedly, counsel for the defendants raised arguments in the summaries regarding the debts appearing in the last column of the ticket in the amount of NIS 12,400 attributed to any of the class members, but these arguments were not raised prior and were not supported by any evidence (see page 20 of the transcript of the hearing of September 18, 2025, lines 8-29).