However, a review of the statement of claim filed by Himanuta in the District Court shows that the interest claimed by it was an annual dollar interest 8% As of May 30, 2008, in accordance with For the agreed compensation which was determined in the last version of the Settlement Agreement and the date of payment set therein. In its summaries in the trial court as well, Himanuta referred only to this interest rate (paragraphs 363-366 of its summaries). However, according to Regulation 14(b) The Civil Procedure Regulations, 5744-1984, do not need to include in the statement of claim a general remedy in the form of linkage and interest differences, and the court is authorized to rule on this component"In any case, at his discretion, as if he had been asked to do so" (see also Section 11(b) to the Remedies Law, in which the right of an injured party to receive, without proof of damage, interest under the Interest Ruling Law for Late Payment, from the date of the breach until the date of payment, "if the court has not set a different rate"). In this regard, the case law also held that, as a rule, the starting point is that linkage and interest differentials should be awarded from the date the cause of action arose. However, it is important to clarify that the power to award interest is discretionary, even though refraining from exercising it is reserved for exceptional cases (Matter Hartabi, para. 16 and the references therein). In the present case, given that Trustee claimed only interest according to the agreed compensation; Given our conclusion that there is no basis for Himanuta's claim to receive the agreed compensation; Given that its alternative argument was raised only at the appeal stage; And in view of the totality of the exceptional circumstances that surround the case at hand, I do not see the need to rule on the agreed compensation that was claimed (and deferred) interest at a different rate, and the ruling of the trial court in this matter should be left in place.
- Therefore, the Patriarchate must pay Hinumerota the sum of ₪13 million in accordance with the representative rate at the time of the District Court's judgment (December 14, 2021), which was ILS 3,113, for a total of ILS 40,469,000 (. To this amount, linkage and interest differentials must be added according to Interest Rulings and Linkage Law In accordance with the date of payment determined in the judgment of the trial court, i.e., from 60 days from the date of its judgment, until the date of actual payment. [Closed article: A review of the file shows that no request was filed to delay the execution of the judgment of the District Court, and it was not clarified whether the sum was indeed paid by the Patriarchate or not. It is clear that if the amount has not been paid, it must bear interest and linkage under the Interest Ruling Law until the date of its actual payment].
Deduction of Amounts
- The last issue in the area of relief revolved around the Patriarchate's claim that the payments that Himanuta received from the other defendants should be deducted from the amount of compensation. This issue is a bit complicated from a factual point of view, and we will try to simplify things.
First, it should be explained that the sum of $13 million set out in the settlement agreement between the JNF and Hymanuta and the Patriarchate was derived from the sum of $20 million that the JNF "lost" as a result of the fraudulent transaction, by deducting the sum of $7 million that the JNF was able to seize and return to it (see the transcript of February 15, 2018, at pp. 93-94, in Adv. Weinroth's cross-examination). There seems to be no dispute about this.
- The statement of claim was directed against a long list of defendants who were connected in some way to the fraudulent transaction, including the fraudsters, the Patriarchate and the "Weinroth Group" (defendants 18-22), of which Adv. Weinroth was a member.
The original statement of claim filed by Himanuta was in the sum of approximately ILS 108 million (an amount equal to ₪20 million as of April 2000 (approximately ILS 80 million plus dollar interest under the Interest Rulings Law) - according to what was stated in Himanuta's request for signature on a ruling submitted to the Court of First Instance on February 15, 2022). Later in the proceeding, an amended statement of claim was filed, in which the amount of the claim was set at approximately ILS 67 million, following a reduction in the sums that Himanuta managed to collect outside the court after the filing of the claim (see also details in her request to amend a statement of claim dated June 7, 2013). Subsequently, after the statement of claim was amended, Himanuta was able to collect an additional ILS 2.3 million from two other defendants with whom it had separately reached settlement agreements (defendants 9, 12).