A note before finishing
- During the evidentiary hearing, it emerged that two additional proceedings were being conducted between the parties in the District Court. One of these proceedings deals with a playground in Jerusalem that is the subject of this lawsuit, and the other deals with the relationship between the parties regarding another playground - in Kfar Tavor. As can be seen from the materials in the file, Babylon claims like a grenade against Rabetz. Many arguments were raised for the first time in the affidavits of the main witness and in the evidentiary hearing, but some of them were abandoned in the summaries. Most of them are irrelevant to the analysis required in this case and to the remedies claimed. In the judgment I did not find any reference to each and every one of the arguments, and the lack of reference to one argument or another does not stem from the fact that it has gone unnoticed by me, but because I did not believe that it is necessary to address the questions that are really in dispute and the remedies that were claimed in this case, as well as for reasons of saving precious judicial time. This procedural conduct of Babylon, however, must be given weight in rulings on legal costs.
Conclusion
- The defendants are obligated, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiff rent and management fees as stated in paragraph 63 above (ILS 795,742), as well as agreed compensation as stated in paragraph 73 above (ILS 143,386), for a total of ILS 939,128. This amount will be supplemented by linkage differentials and interest as required by law from the date the claim is filed.
- In addition, the defendants will reimburse the plaintiff in court fees in proportion to the amount awarded compared to the amount of the lawsuit, and will also bear the plaintiff's attorney's fees in the sum of ILS 65,000. In ruling on this sum, I gave weight to the various proceedings that took place in the case, the scope of the hearings (two pre-trial and two evidentiary hearings), as well as the scope of the pleadings. I also gave weight to the defendant's procedural conduct, which raised many arguments that amounted to an expansion of the front and raised many factual arguments that are not at all relevant to the defendants' remedies, as well as to the fact that the defendant continued to insist on all the insignificant arguments for this case even after the evidentiary hearings, after which she did not accede to the court's proposal to narrow the scope. This conduct burdened the plaintiff, who was forced to invest unnecessary resources in managing the case, including in preparing the evidence and preparing the summaries. I will note that I did not give weight to the tax appeal in the fee award, given that the plaintiff is a member of the tax appeal and there is no indication that it does not deduct input tax.
The right to appeal lawfully.