It should also be clarified that we are not dealing with an attempt by the plaintiff to reopen, in the framework of the civil proceeding, questions that were decided in the criminal proceeding as a retrial, as the Honorable Justice Amit said in the Khalaf case, but rather we are dealing with legal questions on the contractual and tort level, which were not discussed or decided, naturally, in the criminal proceeding.
- In addition, it is impossible to ignore the conflict of interest situation in which the plaintiff and the defendants were found in the criminal proceeding, since the defendants' testimony in favor of the plaintiff could have harmed their chances of defense against a civil lawsuit by the plaintiff. In this context, I will note that the summoning of the defendants as defense witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff in the criminal proceeding also strengthened my impression of the truth of the plaintiff's version of his ignorance of the non-existence of a lawful building permit regarding the "apartment" prior to its purchase. I will add that the testimony of the defendants in the criminal proceeding was oral testimony against a written document, and this issue was also not discussed, by the nature of the proceeding, in a local affairs court.
- The defendants claimed that the plaintiff did not file a motion to bring evidence to contradict the Section 42(c) to the Evidence Ordinance, and therefore it is prevented from contradicting the determinations in the criminal proceeding, which have become "almost conclusive evidence" in the case.
Although it is not possible to find in the Evidence Ordinance a procedural provision regulating the manner in which a request to bring evidence to contradict is submitted under section 42C of the Ordinance, it is possible to conclude from a review of other municipal applications 350/74 M.L.T. in Tax Appeal et al. v. Mas'ud and Yehiel Maman [Nevo] (October 23, 1974) it can be concluded that a request to bring evidence to contradict may be heard at a pre-trial meeting or at the stage of establishing the objection to a certain question that was presented to the witness. When presenting the criminal judgment in civil law.
- In our case, in the preliminary stages of the proceeding, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against her in limine, based on various claims, such as lack of cause, judicial estoppel, lack of adversity, and other claims. On March 14, 2023, I rejected the request, and held, inter alia, with reference to the argument that the plaintiff did not seek to bring evidence to contradict the determinations in the criminal proceeding and that the aforementioned determinations are binding in the present proceeding, Because I am not FromAcceptance of the above argument at this stage, and that The plaintiff has the right to request that contradictory evidence be brought during the The Hearing, and the determination of whether we are dealing with binding determinations will be given at the end of the proceeding.
Counsel for the plaintiff did not succeed in filing a written request to bring evidence to contradict him despite the opportunities given to him to do so, although he reiterated throughout the proceeding that he did not accept the determinations in the criminal proceeding regarding his knowledge of the planning status of the "apartment" prior to its purchase, and that he intended to bring evidence to contradict these determinations. The aforementioned evidence was summed up, at the end of the day, and as it became clear from the evidence, in the testimony of the plaintiff and the sale agreement presented by him.