Your approval/comments.
The Honorable Arbitrator,
Following your suggestion in the last hearing to waive an additional hearing, the parties reached a procedural agreement whereby no further arbitration hearing would be held.
The proposed outline is as follows:
The parties shall submit summaries simultaneously within 60 days of the approval of the outline by the arbitrator..."
(attached as Appendix 2 to the respondents' response).
- In addition, in his letter of October 13, 2024, counsel for the applicants informed the arbitrator: "I have decided to waive my demand for the investigation of the parties." (Appendix 13 to the application, paragraph 19 of the letter).
- 46. The Applicant's claim that the arbitrator did not appoint an arbitrator is also a procedural argument related to the manner in which the arbitration was conducted by the arbitrator, who is, as stated, a construction engineer. It should be noted that the Applicant's arguments for the failure to provide a decision by the arbitrator in her application for the appointment of a mayor are inconsistent with the notice of counsel for the parties that was submitted to the arbitrator regarding an agreed outline for the submission of summaries on their behalf. (Appendix 2 to the respondents' response). In any event, and in the examination of the above necessity, it should be noted that even now the Applicant has not been blocked from requesting clarification from the arbitrator on this matter, in view of the e-mail messages sent by him and attached as Appendix 23 to the Application. It should be emphasized that the aforesaid does not constitute an instruction to the arbitrator, who will act to the best of his discretion and expertise in any application brought before him.
- As to the Applicant's claim that the arbitrator's notice of December 18, 2024, according to which the opinion was completed, prior to the submission of summaries, indicates that the arbitrator's mind is closed; The aforesaid letter of the arbitrator was addressed to the applicant's attorney in this proceeding (who signed the motion submitted to the arbitrator to resign from his position), as well as to the respondents' attorney in the arbitration proceeding, as a response to the request that he resign from his position. (Attached as Appendix 22 to the application). In paragraph 1 of his letter, the arbitrator notes that the arbitration process began about 4 years ago with many postponements by both parties. In paragraph 2, the arbitrator notes that: "Opinion on the subject Construction Defects Completed". (Emphasis mine z.a.).
- As stated, the arbitrator's notice regarding the completion of the opinion was written only in relation to the construction defects, when there is no dispute that the arbitrator has before him additional and other issues on which he is required to decide. Moreover, in an e-mail message sent by the arbitrator to the Applicant's counsel in this proceeding on January 15, 2025, the arbitrator clarifies the claim against him in this matter: "The visit to the property with the parties for the purpose of the construction defects was conducted on October 27, 2022 and my opinion on the subject of construction defects after the tour and hearing the parties has already been written. The rest of the disputes have not yet been written and have not yet been appointed as a mayor to check the quantities". (Appendix 23, p. 576 to the application).
- In addition, in the application of the case law regarding motions to disqualify a judge, it has already been ruled in this matter that the preparation of a draft judgment in advance does not in itself establish grounds for disqualification;
" The same is true with respect to the appellant's argument that the publication of the judgment in the proceeding close to her request to hold a hearing and to cancel the submission of the summaries indicates that the panel has closed its mind. The preparation of a draft judgment does not, in and of itself, establish grounds for disqualification. It has already been held that there is nothing wrong with the court drafting a draft before rendering the judgment, and including its impression of the evidence and the arguments of the parties, as of that time (Appeal of Disqualification of a Judge 58027-03-25 Anonymous v. Anonymous, para. 17 [Nevo] (June 3, 2025); Licensing Applications 2544/21 Saar v. Ministry of Justice - Land Appraisers Council, para. 9 [Nevo] (July 22, 2021); Civil Appeal 3535/00 Wiener v. Sharut, para. 6 [Nevo] (July 1, 2001)). In any event, the mere preparation of a draft in advance, and all the more so after a hearing as in our case, does not mean that the court refrained from giving proper weight to the arguments of the parties or to the fact that its mind was closed." (Appeal 57730-09-25 Anonymous vs. Anonymous (Nevo 25.12.2025); see also: Appeal 58027-03-25 Anonymous v. Anonymous (Nevo 3.6.2025)).