The witness, Adv. Sherman: As for the rent, yes. And then I said to him, 'Listen,' I told him on the phone, 'the rent you paid, of course I have to pay you, there's no dispute about it.'. And then, 'But I'll help you get it out.' I went over several times, I told you, they arrested me. And then I saw that he came to Judge Iris again, and I called my lawyer and told him, 'Listen, come and file a ruling, submit her ruling in order to get it out.' I mean, from me, from me, from me. Despite what he said, Greenbaum, about it. 'You didn't help with the rulings, you didn't help get them out,' and we shook hands. And if not, there is a truth machine in my country.
At the same time, and as has already been clarified, later in the judgment it will be necessary to make a calculation of the total compensation for the plaintiffs' damages [see section 9.7(b) below]. If the total amount of the plaintiffs' compensation is less than the agreed amount of compensation (ILS 1,000,000), there will be no room to determine additional compensation.
- The plaintiffs' demand for compensation for legal expenses in the sum of ILS 153,945 should be rejected [the fourth remedy listed above in paragraph 2(d) of the judgment]
- The plaintiffs petition for payment of the sum of ILS 153,945 for legal expenses incurred as a result of conducting various legal proceedings against the defendants.
- This demand of the plaintiffs cannot be accepted. The place to receive relief for legal expenses due to the conduct of any proceeding is within the framework of the proceeding that was conducted. There is no reason to take a separate legal proceeding, in order to receive legal expenses for a previous legal proceeding. In this regard, see recently - Civil Appeal (Central District) 3031-05-25 David Confino v. State of Israel - Ministry of Justice (of January 14, 2026, Judge Rabinovich Baron, Judge Cenzifer Helfman, Judge Azoulay) where it was held as follows: "An additional claim for expenses that have already been awarded is contrary to the principle of finality of the hearing and to the rules of procedure that are intended to be implemented. See, in this regard, the Supreme Court's judgment in Other Municipal Applications 61/77, Angel v. Meish, IsrSC 31 (3) 673, 675-676 (1977), in which an appeal against the District Court's ruling that "the appellants' claim for legal expenses in respect of the previous trials that took place in the matter and in respect of which it was ruled that each party would bear its own expenses... This determination, according to all opinions, is an act of the court, and it should not be reconsidered. See also Civil Case (Central District) 62844-01-14, Neot Mizrahi in Tax Appeal v. Local Planning and Building Committee, Rishon LeZion, at paragraph 145 of the judgment (March 28, 2018), where it was noted that: "A ruling regarding expenses constitutes an act of the court and should not be reconsidered. See also Civil Appeal Authority (Haifa District) 26204-12-19, Iblin Local Council v. Jawdat Nashashibi Dormitory Centers Ltd. 12.2019))."
- The plaintiffs' demand for compensation for repair expenses in the sum of ILS 250,000 as well as the expenses of restoring the property to its former state in the sum of ILS 354,568 should be rejected [the fifth and seventh remedies that appear above in paragraphs 2(e) and 2(g) of the judgment]
- General comment and reference to double compensation - it will be said right away that even if there was room to accept the plaintiffs' demand for compensation in the sum of ILS 250,000 for the use of the pool and additional compensation in the amount of ILS 354,268 for the restoration of the property to its former state - it would have been necessary to make a calculation as to whether the total compensation for the damages does not coincide with the amount of the agreed compensation. Simply put, even if it had been determined below that the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for these demands, it is still possible that the compensation would have actually been "swallowed up" in the amount of the agreed compensation, and see the legal reference in section 8.6 above, as well as the detail and calculation in section7(b) below.
- On the merits of the matter, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the required compensation, and in this regard the following will be brought:
- First, why the plaintiffs' demands for compensation for the use of the pool and the restoration of the property to its former condition should not be accepted - the plaintiffs attached photographs documenting the condition of the apartment, and there is no dispute that the apartment was not delivered to the plaintiffs in "perfect" condition. However, this is not a new apartment from a contractor, it is a second-hand apartment that was purchased in "AS IS" (Appendix 1 to the amended statement of claim). In order to prove the damages, it was necessary to present the status of delivery as opposed to the situation at the time of signing the sale agreement. Indeed, this is a heavy burden of proof and in any event, the plaintiffs did not meet it and did not prove what the condition of the apartment was at the time of signing the agreement as opposed to the condition in which it was delivered.
- Second, why should the plaintiffs' demands for payment of compensation for the use of the pool and the restoration of the property be accepted - with regard to the demand for compensation for repairs in the sum of ILS 250,000 due to the use of the pool (paragraph 43 of the plaintiffs' summaries). The plaintiffs refer to Appendix B to the agreement, the same contents appendix that they stated at the beginning of their claim that they had lawfully It cannot be argued, on the one hand, that the contents agreement was lawfully canceled, and on the other hand, that an attempt to obtain compensation for it. Here it will be said that if it is determined and the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation in the sum of ILS 250,000 for the 'use of the pool', it will be necessary to determine that the plaintiffs are obligated to pay the contents, including the pool, in the sum of ILS 270,000.
- Third, why should the plaintiffs' demands for payment of compensation for the use of the pool and the restoration of the property to its former condition not be accepted - the plaintiffs did not prove the cost of the repairs that were actually carried out and did not attach references for payment. In this regard, the plaintiff was asked and replied as follows (Tax Appeal 22 of par, paras. 23-32):
"Adv. Arbiv: Can you show me the invoices please? Of what did you pay? About the renovation.