..................................................................................................................
The result of this is that there is an overlap between the companies that are at the basis of the two proceedings, and therefore, the conclusions of the judgment of the Honorable Justice Shmulevitz are relevant to the present proceeding, in a manner that formulates a estoppel.
The application is granted, and the claim against the applicants is dismissed out of hand due to a court action. The plaintiff will pay the applicants expenses in the amount of ILS 20,000 + VAT."
- And from the general to the specific: In the promissory note proceeding, the court ruled on the question of the existence of the debt in respect of the goods and ruled that the plaintiff had not proved her claim and therefore it was rejected.
- As it emerges from the judgment in the promissory note, all the conditions required for the act of the court were met, i.e., the issue discussed in the two proceedings is the same factual and legal issue, the matter was already discussed in a previous proceeding between the parties, the court decided the matter and the decision on the matter was essential for the purpose of the judgment in the first proceeding.
- The following is the judgment in its entirety, from which the aforementioned conclusion arises regarding the act of the court (I have emphasized in the bottom line particularly relevant parts regarding the act of the court that arose as a result of the judgment in the promissory note):
"The proceeding
- Two lawsuits were consolidated before me, beginning with requests for execution of a deed submitted to the Execution Office in respect of three checks that were drawn at the plaintiff's order, and gave rise to the "insufficient coverage" reason.
T.A. 19573-05-17 concerns check No. 0370972 in the sum of ILS 30,000 due on January 16, 2017 and check No. 0370974 in the amount of ILS 14,000 due on January 17, 2017 - for which execution case No. 512091-03-17 was opened.