On the merits, there is no basis for the claim that the elements of the delay existed in the circumstances at hand. The correspondence between the parties indicates that already in September 2008, when it began to become clear to Himanuta (in her view) that the Patriarchate had withdrawn from the agreements reached by the parties, she clarified in a letter to the Patriarchate's counsel that she views the conduct of the Patriarchate as a renegade of its obligations and a breach of them, for which it is entitled to enforcement or subsistence compensation; She adds that if the Patriarchate "persists in its conduct and positions", it will have no choice but to amend its statement of defence "as well as to amend the notices to third parties that it submitted and to add, inter alia, the venerable Patriarch personally as someone who is responsible for his actions and omissions to the state of affairs that has been created" (Adv. Elhanani's letter to Adv. Mughrabi dated September 16, 2008, relating to the proceeding that was being conducted at the time in the Patriarchate's claim (Appendix 45 to the Patriarchate's appeal)). Shortly thereafter, as part of the proceeding in the Patriarchate's lawsuit, the parties reached a procedural agreement "to wait for the time being for the time being for the Supreme Court's ruling on the criminal appeal", on the assumption that it would be given within a year (transcript of October 28, 2008). Later in the same proceeding, the parties agreed that motions to amend pleadings and to add additional parties would be filed by December 15, 2010 (minutes of September 1, 2010).
In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the alleged "delay" on the part of Himanuta testified to the abandonment of the right of claim that it had, and it cannot be said that the Patriarchate changed its situation for the worse due to the alleged delay. It is therefore clear that the elements of delay in civil law were not fulfilled in this case (Civil Appeal 6805/99 General Talmud Torah and Yeshiva Etz Chaim v. Jerusalem Local Planning and Building Committee [Nevo] (July 2, 2003)). I also accept the District Court's determination that the complexity of the matter, their sensitivity, the multiplicity of those involved, and the mix of all the considerations that add up to "an exceptional accumulation of factual and legal circumstances", undermine the argument of impediments raised by the Patriarchate due to the alleged delay in filing the claim (paragraph 166 of the judgment). This is therefore not a case in which the court is required to exercise its authority and dismiss a claim in limine due to abuse of legal proceedings, a power that must be exercised with caution and only in exceptional cases (Civil Appeal 2452/01 Oren v. Migdal Insurance Company Ltd., paragraph 6 [Nevo] (9.10.2003)). Far from it.