In addition, the defendants claim that even on the merits of the matter, the plaintiffs are not entitled to compensation, since a certain delay in completing the construction work stemmed from factors that were not related to the contractor (such as changes in plans or a stop-work order issued by the Israel Antiquities Authority), and in any event, the work was completed already in September 2017, i.e., about four months after the date originally set in the agreement. Therefore, it was argued, at most the plaintiffs can demand compensation for a delay of only one month, since it was agreed that no compensation would be given for the first three months of delay. The defendants admit that the approval of the occupancy was delayed for a long time, but they claim that the reason for this was the fact that the members of the group refrained from developing an open public area ("SP") located near the project, in contravention of their obligation by virtue of the planning and licensing documents, and in any case the delay lies at their doorstep. The defendants also claim that this delay caused damages to the contractor, and that had it not been for the waiver of claims, she would have been entitled to sue them from the members of the class and in any case to deduct them from any debt she has towards them.
- The defendants further claim that there was no justification whatsoever for the plaintiffs' refusal to repay their debt from 2020 until today, and therefore they should be charged interest by virtue of the agreements for this period as well. Additional concrete arguments were also raised, including the claim that after the committee's approval of the card, plaintiff 2 himself sought to add to the amount of the personal debt determined for him in the card of various amounts, while crediting other group members with the same amounts. Therefore, it was argued, even if it is determined that each member of a class owes only the debt attributed to him, the debt of plaintiff No. 2 should be greater than that determined in the ledger.
- The Proceeding
- In a pre-trial hearing on February 2, 2023, various motions filed by the parties were discussed and decided, including regarding the preliminary proceedings. The mediation process to which it was agreed to turn was interrupted at an early stage. Subsequently, the proceeding was transferred to my care, and a large number of decisions were given in order to bring the defendants to implement the decision regarding the preliminary proceedings and to provide additional relevant information, including regarding the sums that were provided as a loan for the purpose of building the venture (see decisions from September 12, 2023 to December 6, 2023).
- Later, the parties submitted evidence. As a result, I ordered the appointment of an accountant as an expert on behalf of the court, in order to give his opinion both on the question of the amount of the total debt to the lenders and on the question of the separation between the defendants and themselves, and between them and the other parties involved in the financing and execution of the venture (decisions of July 4, 2024 and July 23, 2024). The expert submitted an opinion (a draft of which was even forwarded to the parties' comments before it was submitted). As part of the opinion, the expert also made calculations regarding the amounts of debt owed to the lender, in accordance with the provisions of the agreements and the law regarding interest on the loan amounts.
- It should be noted that the procedural conduct of the defendants demanded the rendering of a large number of decisions, and more than once gave rise to difficulties: this is the case with regard to the implementation of the decision regarding the preliminary proceedings, as stated above; The same applies to the filing of applications that had no place (see decisions of February 7, 2024); This is the case with regard to the transfer of documents to the expert (decisions of December 12, 2024 and December 18, 2024); The same applies to a series of motions filed by the defendants at a later stage to amend a statement of defense, to re-conduct preliminary proceedings, to testify witnesses, and more (see a series of pre-trial decisions of June 4, 2025).
- In any event, on 10 September 2025, the testimonies were heard. Plaintiffs 1-3 testified on behalf of the plaintiffs, as well as attorney Ofer Naveh, who served as the trustee of the class members. On behalf of the defendants, counsel for defendants 1-2, Adv. Boaz Barzili, Mr.[5] Nahum Rachmin, who was involved in establishing contact between the class members and the defendants and in promoting the construction work itself, as well as a member of the group committee, Mr. Eshkol David, testified. In addition, at the request of the defendants, the expert was questioned on behalf of the court.
- Shortly after hearing the testimonies, the plaintiffs petitioned to submit additional evidence, namely correspondence that took place in the WhatsApp group of the group members, which they claimed taught that the group committee was not authorized to sign a waiver of claims on behalf of the group members. Later it was agreed that the additional evidence would be accepted; that the defendants would be able to relate to the defendants' claims; and that the plaintiffs would be able to address the defendants' claims. On the other hand, the plaintiffs waived the arguments they raised against the very submission of the waiver of claims as evidence (page 22 of the typed transcript of September 18, 2025).
The summaries were heard on September 18, 2025, after which the references to the additional evidence were submitted.
- To complete the picture, it should be noted that the proceeding in the case of plaintiff 5, who was one of the members of the class Asher Sign the additional agreements that included a mutual waiver of claims (paragraph) 14 above), concluded by agreement on January 2, 2024.
- It should also be noted that at the request of plaintiff 1, temporary relief was granted ordering a stay of proceedings taken against him by the lender to realize the mortgage registered on the land in favor of the lending company (Appendix 24 to the affidavit of plaintiff 1; decision of August 28, 2022). In the case of plaintiffs 3-4, such realization proceedings were conducted, in the framework of which they were enabled to redeem their rights in the land (see Civil Case 63357-12-24). The state of affairs regarding the realization of the rights of plaintiffs 2, 6 and 7 was not fully clarified, although it was possible to understand that their rights in the land were realized.
- At the end of the agreements, the parties were given time to conduct negotiations. Unfortunately, on 24 November 2025, it was announced that these contacts were unsuccessful. Therefore, the claim must be decided.
- Discussion and Decision
- In order to determine the amount of each plaintiff's debt to the defendants, it is necessary to decide a number of matters:
First, it is necessary to discuss whether the plaintiffs' debt to the lender is "jointly and severally" with the other members of the class, as the defendants claim, so that the plaintiffs owe the total balance of the debt; Or, as the plaintiffs claim, an individual calculation should be made regarding the debt of each member individually.