The plaintiffs note that the agreement was concluded in such a way that it harms one of the parties to the mediation. However, these arguments were not supported, as stated above, by any testimony other than the testimony of plaintiff 2 (and in this regard, the court must pay attention to the provisions of section 54 of the Evidence Ordinance, which deals with the testimony of a single party with all that this entails). Moreover, the primary responsibility for the content of an agreement lies with the parties to this agreement. They are not at all a party to the proceeding, and therefore it is not possible to determine what was behind the agreements they reached, what their mindset was, and how they viewed the plaintiffs' share in this proceeding. The duty of care owed by the mediator, although it may extend to third parties, cannot lead to absolute liability when he is not one of the parties to the agreement that brought about the damages, according to the plaintiffs.
I also found it to be noted that plaintiff 1 did not file an affidavit on her behalf at all, and the testimony of plaintiff 2 remained, as stated above, a single testimony. Even if I accept the testimony of plaintiff 2 in relation to the situation of plaintiff 1 and the relevance of this testimony, there is room to mention the following. In addition, the testimony of plaintiff No. 2 was evasive, at times confused and unclear. This is in addition to the aggressive language used by plaintiff No. 2 in relation to the defendant's attorney and even to the defendant himself, who found to insult him time and time again. Although I did not find room to attribute weight to his conduct with regard to the allegations on their merits, I found that this unfortunate fact should be noted, since this conduct had no place and I have no choice but to regret it.
To be precise, the judgment annulling the second judgment and the arrangement (Family Case 23548-05-18) notes Ms. Levy's claims regarding her discrimination, which also echoed in the plaintiffs' summaries. The problem is that the disputes between the members of the Levy family were also brought in the framework of the second proceeding and the parallel proceeding that took place in the court in Ramla, in which the relief sought was the cancellation of the first settlement (Civil Case 15541-09-09). See the minutes of the hearing of March 22, 2011 in family case 1405-09-10, which is the second proceeding in which the arrangement that is the subject of this action was approved. Already there, Moshe Levy's counsel expressed his position that "the judgment cannot stand" (referring to the settlement in the first case, on which the plaintiffs seek to rely). In the framework of the second proceeding, allegations of deception and deception were also raised (see p. 2, lines 4; 8-14).
- In this sense, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant that O'Leary made sure to move the "meat pot" to the side One of the litigants who were part of the mediation process which was conducted - they were argued without a factual basis, with a serious lack of evidence (certainly, taking into account the severity of the claims they raised), and while raising arguments from the threshing floor and the winery, accusing the defendant of persuading (!) the parties to bring about the cancellation of the first settlement agreement.
The above is inconsistent with the mediation agreement itself as detailed above and is not supported by any external evidence.