Caselaw

Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 58538-05-19 Michael Benz and 52 others v. Appeal of the Financial Case – Supreme Court Guy Nof - part 59

May 29, 2026
Print

In the circumstances of the case, there is also no concern about double compensation.  The plaintiffs have so far received a refund that does not reflect their full investment.  The payments to supplement the consideration that this section deals with are relatively small compared to the funds transferred at the time of signing the agreements.

  1. The plaintiffs petitioned in their summaries (at paragraph 584) and in their claim (in paragraph 31 of the amended statement of claim) for the full refund of the sums of their investment and expenses, plus interest and linkage to the construction inputs index. Against this background, the question arises as to whether this index should be used in relation to the amount of compensation awarded above.

My answer is no.

The plaintiffs did not explain why the linkage mechanisms established by the law should not be added in general and applied to the circumstances of this case.  A general reasoning is not enough.  The missed opportunity of an alternative investment in the field of housing has not been established, and against this background, it would be appropriate to add an interest and linkage ruling in accordance with the general law applicable to the issue.

There is no reason to award the said compensation in favor of the plaintiffs 43-44

  1. The determination of the aforementioned compensation is relevant to all the members of the class who did advance the payment of the portion of the consideration in light of Ms. Or's demand, in accordance with what is stated at the head of the present damage.

At the same time, it is not relevant to the plaintiffs, Ms. Sinai Riklis Tom and Ms. Sinai Chodorov Lee (Plaintiffs 43-44).  This is because it turned out, in the course of the proceeding, that they had sold their rights in the project back in December 2014 to their cousin - Mr. Ram Avraham Yair (hereinafter: Mr. Yair), their brother, in exchange for their full investment; This is in accordance with the sale agreement of December 11, 2014 (Appendix 175 to the defendants' affidavits, see pages 3294-3295).

Previous part1...5859
60...66Next part