- In their response, the respondents petition for the rejection of the application. According to them, this is the Applicant who, when she felt that the arbitrator was not inclined to her side, began to dig into the arbitrator's conduct throughout the years of conducting the arbitration, in order to find proof that he was not worthy of the trust of the parties.
- According to the respondents, the arbitrator was based on the opinion of the parties, who were aware in advance of the fact that he was not a jurist. The motion was filed after an arbitration proceeding that lasted over four years, in which five hearings were held (preliminary hearing and four evidentiary hearings), spread over 528 pages of minutes. After a decision had already been made ordering the submission of summaries in arbitration, the Applicant remembered to petition the court for the removal of the arbitrator from his position.
- In their response, the respondents refer to the substance of the statements made against the arbitrator. Thus, for example, with regard to the arbitrator's words brought in paragraph 13 of the application, the respondents claim that the statements were made at the hearing of September 7, 2023, and the context in which the statements were made must be examined. From a perusal of the transcript it can be learned that the Applicant's counsel argued that there are legal questions that must be decided and that the statements were made by the arbitrator in this context. This is a matter of bringing "cynical" quotes from the arbitrator, who was appointed with the consent of both parties, who knew and agreed that this was an arbitrator in the field of engineering who was not a jurist. Moreover, the arbitrator's words quoted in paragraph 13 of the application were made by the arbitrator about a year and three months before the application was filed, and the said delay is sufficient to teach about what is claimed.
- According to the respondents, a review of the minutes that are the subject of the arbitration hearings shows that this is a purely professional engineering dispute. It also appears that the arbitrator conducted the arbitration process with great professionalism. The respondents further argue that in this matter the criteria required should be referred to an arbiter who is not a jurist, who is not proficient in everything related to disqualification tests, as opposed to those required of jurists.
- According to the Respondents, these are claims raised retrospectively whose sole purpose is to invalidate the arbitration that lasted for years, when the parties invested considerable resources in it, all based on the Applicant's subjective feelings.
- The Respondents further claim that it is not for nothing that the Applicant did not attach to her application the arbitration protocol of July 5, 2023, in which the Applicant's expert was interrogated and his opinion was completely refuted. According to the respondents, the court should not lend a hand to the Applicant's attempt to cancel the arbitration proceeding solely for this reason.
- Contrary to the Applicant's arguments regarding the preference of one party over the other by the arbitrator, the Respondents refer to the fact that the Arbitrator did not accept the Respondents' arguments for the disqualification of the opinion (the minutes of the hearing of July 5, 2023 were attached as Appendix 1 to the Respondents' response, see p. 84).
- In addition, in the first hearing that took place before the arbitrator, the summary of which was attached as Appendix 7 to the application, the arbitrator instructed each party to submit any other material that supports its claim. The Applicant did not file affidavits on her behalf, nor did she claim throughout the arbitration that the parties should have submitted affidavits. Nevertheless, the Applicant claims in paragraph 2 of the application that she was denied the right to submit affidavits on her behalf, without any basis or support.
- According to the respondents, the quotes quoted in paragraph 16 of the application describe the arbitrator's attempt to perform his duties, to conduct the arbitration hearings continuously, and in the process, the arbitrator turns to the applicant's counsel with statements whose purpose is not to delay the hearing.
- The Respondents reiterate that it is puzzling why the Applicant waited in filing the motion to remove the arbitrator from his position until the conclusion of the proceeding and the decision on the submission of the summaries and did not act to file the application even shortly after the last hearing that took place in September 2024.
- With regard to the lack of cross-examinations, the respondents refer to paragraph 27 of the application, where the applicant's counsel confirms that he waived the interrogations. This is consistent with an e-mail message sent by the Applicant's counsel on June 17, 2024 to the Respondents' Counsel, in which he expressly wrote: "My client approves the proposal to waive the holding of an additional arbitration hearing and to make do with the submission of summaries." (attached as Appendix 2 to the respondents' response). Therefore, the Applicant is prevented from raising retroactive claims regarding the examinations of witnesses after she has waived this right.
- The Applicant's argument regarding the appointment of a mayor also contradicts the Applicant's notice regarding the termination of the proceeding and the submission of summaries, and constitutes an attempt by the Applicant to determine the manner in which the arbitration proceeding will be conducted.
- According to the respondent, the arbitrator's notice regarding the completion of the opinion was given, according to his notice, only with regard to the construction defects, after the arbitrator visited the site in October 2022.
- According to the Respondents, all of the Applicant's arguments, as raised in the Application, relate to a clear delay that in itself justifies the rejection of the Application. The arbitrator's decisions regarding the manner in which the arbitration should be conducted were given by him in accordance with the authority given to him by the court in the appointment decision, for the purpose of streamlining the hearing, and they do not establish grounds for removing him from his position. This is a case, at most, a subjective feeling on the part of the Applicant that she does not establish grounds for disqualification. The respondents reiterate that granting the request will cause the respondents damage and legal torture, and this should not be allowed.
III. Discussion and Decision;
- On January 19, 2026, a hearing was held before me on the application, in which the parties completed oral arguments.
- The relevant provision of the law with respect to the Applicant's arguments is fixed In section 11(1) to the Arbitration Law pursuant to:
"11. The court may remove an arbitrator from office in one of the following cases: