The existence of a causal connection in our case - was it the second judgment that led to the delay in the issuance of building permits?
- Even if I were to find that the mediator breached the duty of care, the plaintiffs did not prove the existence of a causal connection between the settlement agreement and the alleged delay in the realization of building permits on the land.
As may be recalled, the plaintiffs applied for approval of the division plan that was attached to the first settlement agreement only in 2016 - about 6 years after its approval. Even after it became clear to them following the decision of the Appeals Committee, which determined that it was difficult to approve it in light of the second settlement agreement, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to cancel the second settlement agreement only in 2018, and even today, in the middle of 2026, when the settlement agreement was canceled almost three years ago, building permits on the land have not yet been approved.
As appears from the plaintiffs' summaries, even today the landowners are seeking to reach agreements that will maximize the possibilities of exploitation by way of renewed planning, which has not yet matured into a valid plan.
Therefore, even though the measurement plan was not approved by the local committee, inter alia due to the contradiction between the two agreements, the determination that this contradiction - and only it - led to a delay in the realization of the land is highly speculative.
Although the second judgment was one of the reasons for the difficulty in approving the zoning plan, as emerged from the committee's decisions, the plaintiffs did not prove that it was the sole or decisive factor in the delay in the realization of the building permits.
The plaintiffs applied for approval of the zoning plan only in 2016, years after the first judgment was approved, and even today, after the cancellation of the second judgment, building permits have not yet been approved. In addition, the local committee's decisions included additional planning reasons for the non-approval, which are not directly related to the second ruling, such as crossing an existing building and the committee's policy.