They then filed a petition with the Court for Administrative Affairs (Administrative Petition 53911-12-17), which was deleted by consensus, after it was claimed that this was a proprietary dispute.
The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916
12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)The plaintiffs filed a claim with the Family Court to annul the second judgment when the mediator was defendant No. 3 in the statement of claim and even filed a statement of defense (Family Case 23548-05-18).
However, on the court's recommendation , it was agreed between the plaintiffs and the mediator that the mediator would be removed from the lawsuit, without an order for costs and without this constituting an act of court, and in fact the substantive claim against him was not decided.
At the end of the day, the Family Court ruled that the second judgment, which gave effect to the mediation agreement that is the subject of the lawsuit, was void.
- The significance of this, according to the plaintiffs, is that it was the defendant's actions that led to the delay in the possibilities of realizing the land for a period of 6 years, and he is responsible for the damages caused to them.
According to them, the defendant knew or should have known that a final judgment leads to the complete termination of litigation between the parties in the same matter or anyone who is legally close to one of them, and therefore the first judgment in fact established a procedural barrier for the parties on the question that was decided in its framework, and even the court is not authorized to annul it.
Despite this, the mediator sought to give effect to a judgment on the illegal mediation agreement.
Had the court known that it was approving a mediation agreement that annuls a final judgment, it would not have given it the validity of a judgment.
- Appended to the statement of claim was an appraiser's opinionEstimating the amount of the plaintiffs' damages due to the alleged delay in the possibility of exercising the building rights on the land.
The defendant's arguments:
- According to the defendant, The dispute between the defendants in the parallel proceeding ended in an arrangement that they reached in a mediation proceeding that took place with the assistance of the defendant.
The judgment was given on the basis of agreements reached between the parties to it, and therefore they alone are responsible for the damage as a result of the judgment, and therefore there is no rivalry between the plaintiffs and the defendant.