As noted, the decision of the local committee that refused to approve the plan brought additional reasons for the non-approval. The Local Committee Engineer noted in the framework of the proceedings that took place in Family Case 1405-09-10 (the proceeding that led to the cancellation of the judgment that gave effect to the Second Settlement Arrangement), that the Local Committee would not have approved the first division drawing, since the result of it is the transfer of the boundary of a lot in an existing building - which would have been contrary to the policy of the Local Committee, as clarified in the Public Works Industry of February 1, 2022, which was filed in the framework of that proceeding (and see the judgment in Family Case 1405-09-10 in section 1(b)).
Since it was not possible to bring about the practical realization of that subdivision plan, in light of the fact that it transferred the boundary of a lot within an existing building, the meaning of which is its demolition, and the implications of this for the internal planning, the building lines and the possibilities of realizing the construction on the site, and the fact that even today, despite the time that has elapsed after the cancellation of the second judgment, the plaintiffs have failed to prove the causal connection between the mediation arrangement and the alleged delays. If the main problem was the second ruling, then with its annulment, the road to construction should have been opened.
The fact that even after the cancellation of the second judgment, no evidence was presented that the planning and property restrictions were removed, strengthens the argument that the source of the problem was deeper and related to planning and proprietary limitations that were not part of the mediation process that was conducted before the defendant. Thus, for example, the position of the ILA - the owner of the land - which has not yet apparently approved the planning proceedings.
The defendant, as a mediator, was not authorized or obligated to resolve complex planning or proprietary issues that preceded the mediation or were not part of the specific mandate given to him by the court.
- In addition, and at the same time, the severance of the causal connection also stems from the approval of a settlement within the framework of theMoving a Discussion Venue inFamily file 1405-09-10. Behm"Q examined the settlement arrangement, and took into account the database before him (which included the existence of a parallel proceeding aimed at canceling theMoving a Discussion Venue The first) found that it was correct to approve the settlement as it is. Due to the refusal of the parties, I have no information regarding the process of approving the arrangement, but at the end of the day the arrangement as it is - approved. Therefore, even if I believed that there was negligence on the part of the mediator (and as stated above - I do not believe that this is the case) - Beyham's Confirmation"Q The settlement severs the causal connection between the mediation arrangement and the alleged damages.
- Accordingly, even if there was room to accept a claim regarding a breach of a statutory duty by the defendant - and the aforesaid with respect to the defendant's duty towards Third parties It is also true with regard to the plaintiffs' argument in this matter, that the absence of a causal connection between the defendant's actions and the alleged delay leads to the rejection of the claim in relation to a breach of statutory duty that led to the damages.
To be precise, the plaintiffs did not point to a statutory obligation to have a possible effect on third parties to bring about a halt to the mediation proceedings.