The Local Affairs Court convicted the plaintiff of the offenses attributed to him, basing, inter alia, on the aforementioned testimony of the defendants, and in the verdict, the following determinations were determined, inter alia:
Article 42:
"From the interrogation of the aforementioned two witnesses, it is clear that the defendant also knew about the planning status of the property, and at the very least, he closed his eyes and did not want to check the planning status of the property, before proceeding to its purchase."
Article 122:
"The defendant's duty was to verify the planning status of the property, this was even explicitly stated in the purchase contract, both Attorney Manor and the seller of the property, who were summoned as testimony on his behalf, confirmed that he knew positively that we were dealing with a property for which there was no building permit, he took a risk, as Mrs. Shai [i.e., the defendant, K.G.] said in her testimony, and purchased the property in its condition as it is."
Article 123:
"The defendant took a risk by purchasing an apartment for which there is no building permit, and this risk was realized, but in this situation, the defendant has nothing to blame but himself."
- The defendants claimed that the plaintiff is silenced from raising claims and/or presenting evidence that contradicts the aforementioned determinations, both by virtue of the doctrine of judicial estoppel, and by virtue of Sections 42A(a) and 42(c) to the Evidence Ordinance [New Version], 5731-1971, especially since he did not file a request to bring evidence to contradict as required by the Section 42(c).
I do not accept the defendants' aforementioned argument.
Regarding judicial estoppel - the doctrine of judicial estoppel means that a party who has made a claim in a legal proceeding and his claim has been accepted is silenced from denying his claim in a proceeding against another adversary and making a contrary claim. The purpose of the rule is that a party should not be allowed to abuse court proceedings, and he should not be allowed to gain a legal advantage after he won and failed in a previous proceeding the fruits of a contradictory argument (Civil Appeal 513/89 S/interlego A v. 1.lines bros. S.a-exin[Nevo] (June 9, 1994).