As for the festive ceremony held on March 12, 2007, it was determined that the Patriarch had not been subjected to improper pressure to sign the agreement, and that the foundations of the cause of oppression were certainly not being formed; that at this stage the wording of the agreement was final and final; and that according to Israeli law, the patriarch's actions in the ceremony can be seen as evidence of his intention to enter into a compromise agreement.
As to the Letter of Recognition from the Government of Israel, it was held that even though the date set in the details had passed, the Patriarchate, in its conduct and presentations, gave its consent to extend the date for the issuance of the letter of recognition.
Regarding the confirmation of the Holy Synod With regard to the settlement agreement, it was determined that this approval was indeed given. The court insisted that the minutes from the meetings of the synod have significant and essential evidentiary value for the purpose of deciding the question of the approval of the holy synod, but until the day the judgment was rendered, the Patriarchate had not complied with the order for the disclosure of the minutes and had not forwarded the requested text to the Municipality or the court; and that, in accordance with the rule of special knowledge and the rule of best evidence, as well as the testimonies of Himanuta, the latter succeeded in lifting the burden of persuasion and proving that the Holy Synod had been approved, contrary to the claims of the Patriarchate.
- In view of the above, it was held that No binding agreement has been perfected between the parties. At the same time, the trial court found that the patriarchate acted in bad faith in its refusal to sign the settlement agreement; that although it justified its withdrawal from the negotiations by the absence of funding for the settlement by a third party, the language of the agreement indicates that its validity was not conditional on this; and that it has not been proven that the disagreement between the parties regarding the "comfort letter" would have led to the refusal to sign the agreement had it not been for the Patriarchate withdrawing from the negotiations. It was further determined that in view of the fact that apart from the formal signing of the agreement, there were no other matters that had not yet been agreed upon; in view of the degree of guilt of the patriarchy; And in light of the "cry of fairness" that arises from the circumstances of the case, in light of all of this, there are exceptions that justify awarding subsistence damages due to lack of good faith in the negotiations.
With regard to the agreed compensation set out in clause 11 of the settlement agreement of April 15, 2008, according to which for every delay of one year in the payment of the settlement amount, dollar interest at the rate of 8% will be added, it was determined that there is no reasonable ratio between the damage and the rate of compensation, and therefore it was determined that the Patriarchate should not be obligated to do so. It was further held that Himanuta's claim is a contractual claim standing on its own, and it is not a tort claim in which the Patriarchate was sued together with other parties as jointly wrongdoers, and therefore the Patriarchate's claim that the sums received (or will receive) Himanuta should be deducted from the amount of compensation in the framework of the tort claim it filed against the other defendants should not be accepted. The bottom line is that the trial court ruled that the Patriarchate owes a payment of $13 million to Himanuta.
- For the sake of completeness, and although the appeals before us do not validate these determinations of the trial court, I will note that Himanuta's claim against the "money changers" for the return of the funds that passed into their hands was dismissed because it was not found that the elements of the tort of theft had been fulfilled; and that Himanuta's lawsuit against the fraudsters (which also included tort grounds) was accepted, so that the businessman was ordered to return a sum equal to the full amount of Himanuta's damages - $20 million, and the additional person who assisted him was charged $4.5 million, all by deducting the sums that had already been seized or paid.