Caselaw

Civil Appeal 1463/22 The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem v. Himanuta Ltd. - part 34

July 14, 2025
Print

"The plaintiff does not dispute that the sum of the sums that she will be entitled to collect in this case, and for the direct damage caused to her as a result of the cancellation of the 2000 real estate transaction in general, cannot exceed the amount of the claim, or, respectively, the sum of US$20 million.  However, this does not deprive the plaintiff, and she is entitled to charge, the amounts of interest due to her on the amounts of the claim, and these do not fall under these ceilings.  Similarly, the amount that the Patriarchate will be obligated to pay to the plaintiff in the values of 2008 and to be paid in practice, should be less than the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff in 2000, since the settlement benefits this damage.  Accordingly, this amount, when it is estimated to the date for which the entire amount of the claim was assessed, must be neutralized from the amount of the claim, and the plaintiff will not be entitled to charge a higher amount" (ibid., section 370).

As for the arrangement with the Weinroth Group, Himanuta clarified that it is -

"It does not deny that if the Patriarchate had upheld the settlement agreement, the plaintiff would not have acted to exhaust her rights in this proceeding vis-à-vis the Weinroth Group.  The result was that the plaintiff would have received the settlement amount of $13 million from the Patriarchate [...] and Adv. Weinroth and the Weinroth Group in general would have been exempt from any liability for any damages to the plaintiff.  Since the Patriarchate did not fulfill its obligation, the plaintiff was forced to file a lawsuit against the Weinroth Group [...]."

At the same time, with regard to the Patriarchate's claim that the amount paid by Weinroth should be deducted, Himanuta argued that the Patriarchate was not entitled to this reduction, since the intention of the parties was that the Patriarchate would be the one to pay the full amount of the settlement, while it was Weinroth who would be relieved of liability to it.  At this point, Himanuta added an argument that should be brought in her own words (emphases below):

Previous part1...3334
35...53Next part