With regard to these defects, the court's expert determined that they were the defendant's responsibility, and set the cost of repairing all the defects at ILS 28,800 plus VAT.
This is in addition to engineering supervision in the amount of ILS 4,500 including VAT. This sum was determined on the assumption that the work would be carried out by a uniform contractor on behalf of the defendant. If the works are carried out by a contractor on behalf of the plaintiffs, 30% must be added to the price estimate, i.e., ILS 8,640.
- Construction defects that were canceled and left to the court's discretion: The court's expert determined that the defective slope in the shower stall was canceled prior to his visit. The plaintiffs explained to the court's expert that the location of the drainage channel had been replaced. Since the expert was not able to examine the original defect, he estimated the cost of repairing it at ILS 2,500, which he left to the court's discretion.
- As for the depreciation, the court's expert determined that there was no depreciation.
- As has been ruled more than once, when the court decides to appoint an expert on its behalf in order to bring before the court relevant professional data for deciding the dispute before it, it will adopt the expert's findings in the absence of a significant and conspicuous reason not to do so (Civil Appeal 2099/08 Ashkelon Municipality v. 5737 Investments in a Tax Appeal (October 28, 2010); Uri Goren, Issues in Civil Procedure (11th Edition, 2013), p. 468).
- In our case, I found it necessary to adopt the expert's findings, which are based on the expert's examinations, experience and professionalism and were not contradicted in his cross-examination (see in this regard: Civil Appeal 2160/90 Raz v. Latz, IsrSC 47(5) 170; Civil Appeal 974/91 Amid Building Contracting Company in Tax Appeal v. Zmora Local Planning and Building Committee, IsrSC 50(5) 104).
- In their summaries, the plaintiffs raised objections with respect to the expert's determinations, both with respect to the linkage of the amounts to the construction inputs index; both in relation to the defect that the expert left to the court's discretion; both in relation to deficiencies that the expert did not recognize; both in relation to the defects that were approved by the expert, but according to the plaintiffs, higher compensation should be awarded; and in relation to his determination that there is no depreciation. Let us examine these objections one by one:
Linkage of the amounts to the Construction Inputs Index
- According to the plaintiffs (paragraph 16 of the plaintiffs' summaries), in accordance with the expert's testimony, the sums should be linked to the construction inputs index. The opinion was signed in February 2024, with the Central Bureau of Statistics data for February 2024 at 129.9 points. The CPI for March 2025 - the month prior to the submission of the plaintiffs' summaries - stood at 138.2 points, an increase of 8.3 points, and a rate of 6.39%. Therefore, the estimate of the cost of repairing the defects should be ILS 57,306, before adding the changes approved by the court's expert in his interrogation. On the other hand, the defendant argues that the sums should be linked to the construction inputs index from the date of the judgment and not from the date of the signing of the opinion.
- The court's expert testified in his interrogation that the values of the opinion are linked to the construction inputs index in accordance with the date of the opinion in February 2024 (p. 1, paras. 23-25 of the minutes of the hearing).
- As has been determined more than once, the court must make a realistic estimate of the expense required to finance the costs of repairs, based on the expert's assessment of the prices in the market at the given time, which is correct for the time. Accordingly, linking the amounts to the construction inputs index will ensure that the amounts that will be awarded will reflect the change in construction costs between the date the opinion was drafted, which reflected the prices in the market at the time it was drafted, and the date of the judgment. Therefore, the amount of compensation will be calculated by linking the amount determined by the expert in the opinion, and this amount will be linked to the construction input index from the date of the opinion until today (see in this regard: Civil Appeal 9085/00 Shitrit et al. v. Sharbat Construction Company Ltd., IsrSC 57(5) 462; Civil Case (Tel Aviv District) 2648/98 Levin Ephraim v. Danya Cebus Building Company in Tax Appeal (June 18, 2008) (para. 69); Civil Case (Shalom Tel Aviv) 12210-09-17 Israel Rosen v. Y.A. and the Sons 2008 in a Tax Appeal (August 11, 2024) (paragraph 37)).
The defect that the court's expert left to the court's discretion
- The plaintiff testified that he was required to repair the slope of the shower stall in the master bathroom and paid the sum of ILS 4,300 for the repair, but did not attach a reference because he could not find the repair invoice (paragraphs 33 and 35 of the plaintiff's affidavit). The plaintiff's testimony regarding the execution of the repair was reliable and was also supported by the expert opinion on his behalf (paragraph 4.4 of the plaintiff's opinion). As to the cost, the expert determined that the cost of the repair was ILS 2,500 (transcript of the hearing of January 22, 2025, at p. 20, para. 16), and so did the plaintiff's expert. Therefore, and in the absence of any other evidence, I have not found a deviation from the expert's determination with respect to the cost. Therefore, I determine that the defendant must pay the plaintiff the sum of ILS 2,500 for this component.
Defects not approved by the court's expert