The defendant was not a party to the agreements reached between the parties to the mediation arrangement, nor was he a party to its implementation or non-implementation.
It was the court that was aware of all the proceedings that took place between the parties that approved the mediation agreement; it was the parties to the dispute who reached agreements, and these parties are not parties to this proceeding at all.
In addition, the defendant claimed the existence of confidentiality - the defendant cannot provide any version or relate to the claims of those third parties, who are the plaintiffs, relating to the substance of the dispute that was discussed before the mediator.
On the merits of the damage - it was not possible to implement the first judgment since the ILA had reservations about the division made between the parties that did not correspond to the planning situation according to the law and the zoning plan, and it was also argued that the parties must regulate all the deviations that exist in the land. In practice, even among the other owners of the land, the proprietary disputes did not end.
The very existence of the proceeding in which the parties reached the mediation agreement (family case 1405-09-10) and civil case 15541-09-09 Levy v. Levy, in which the court was asked to order the cancellation of the first judgment due to the dispute between the members of the Levy family over the manner in which the rights were divided between them.
According to the defendant, at the time the parties signed the mediation agreement, it was clear that the agreement relates only to the relationship between the warring parties, and therefore there was no intention or statement that the agreement that is the subject of the lawsuit cancels or replaces the settlement agreement given in the framework of the first judgment - except in the same relationship between the parties to the mediation arrangement and the second judgment.
According to the defendant, in practice, even at the end of the proceedings in the framework of this lawsuit, a building permit has not yet been granted on the land, and therefore it is not possible to attribute to the defendant's actions any weight of the inability to bring about the realization of the rights in the land, and these are the responsibility of the plaintiffs and the other owners of rights in the land.