From the general to the individual
- The conclusion from all of the above is that The transcripts of the recordings attached by the appellants should not be regarded as a "written" confession for the purpose of Section 9 to the statute of limitations.
Given that, as stated, the parties reached a procedural agreement in the District Court, according to which the decision on the statute of limitations claim "will focus on the legal question of whether the recording constitutes a written document for the purpose of Section 9 of the Statute of Limitations", the law therefore dismissed the appellants' claim in limine due to the statute of limitations.
- It should be emphasized that in view of the aforesaid procedural agreement, I did not see fit to address the other arguments of the appellants, including their argument that the claim of limitation should be rejected even in the absence of a "written" admission, due to the "cry of fairness" that arises from the circumstances of the present case, in view of the precedent set out in the judgment of other municipal requests 986/93 Kalmar v. Guy, P.D. N(1) 185 (1996) (hereinafter: עניין Pencil case). However, and given that the parties addressed this issue at length in their arguments, I will mention that the rule established in the matter Pencil case Concerning the Written Requirement in section 8 Law The Real Estate, and has not yet been applied to the written requirement relating to our matter. Beyond that, I will note that even on the merits, the circumstances of the case before us are very far from those exceptional and rare cases that are liable to give rise to a "cry of fairness".
Conclusion
- In view of all of the above, I would suggest to my colleagues that we dismiss the appeal.
I will further suggest that the appellants bear the expenses of respondents 2-3 in the sum of ILS 10,000.
| Yael Willner
Judge |
Judge Ruth Ronen:
I agree.
| Ruth Ronen
Judge |