Caselaw

Civil Case (Jerusalem) 18644-01-25 Yair Lang v. Mishkan Eliyahu – Construction and Investment Company Ltd.

October 13, 2026
Print
Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court
Civil Case 18644-01-25 Lang et al.  v. Mishkan Eliyahu – Construction and Investment Company Ltd.  et al. 

Exterior Case:

 

Before The Honorable Judge Yael Antebi-Sharon

 

 

Plaintiffs

 

1.  Yair Lang

2.  Meital Lang

By Adv. Baruch Rubin

 

Against

 

 

Defendants 1.            Mishkan Eliyahu – Construction and Investments Company Ltd. 

(Judgment given)

2.  Golan Itach

3.  Dalit Itach

Defendants 2-3 by Adv. Avital Winter

 

Judgment

This action deals with alleged moisture damage in the plaintiffs' apartment, their source and the manner in which they were prevented.

  1. The main facts and the manner of clarification of the proceeding
  1. We are dealing with a condominium located at 10 Nahlieli Street, Tzur Hadassah (hereinafter: the "Condominium"), Block 30782, Plot 8.  The plaintiffs are the owners of the apartment known as Sub-Plot 7 (hereinafter: the "Plaintiffs' Apartment").  Defendant 1 is the company that built the condominium.  Defendants 2-3 are the owners of an apartment known as Sub-Plot 9 (hereinafter: the "Defendants' Apartment").  The defendants' apartment is a penthouse apartment located on the fourth floor, above the plaintiffs' apartment.
  2. The matter of the claim is the penetration of claimed water from the defendants' apartment to the plaintiffs' apartment.  On January 8,2025, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in which they claimed that the construction of the condominium was completed in 2018 and that since 2020 there has been a water leak from the defendants' apartment to their apartment, as a result of defects in the defendants' apartment or negligent work carried out in it.  It was claimed that all the defendants' attempts to repair the leak were unsuccessful and that the problem in the plaintiffs' apartment worsened to the point that it was not possible to make use of the parents' room in the plaintiffs' apartment.  It was claimed that dampness and mold spread on the ceiling, with the moisture causing damage to the electrical elements in the ceiling.
  3. The plaintiffs claimed that they had approached the defendants on a number of occasions, but the defendants, for their part, did not cooperate.  The plaintiffs petitioned in their claim for a declaratory order regarding the defendants' responsibility jointly and severally to carry out the repairs or an injunction requiring the defendants jointly and severally to repair everything that required repair in the apartment of defendants 2-3 and under the supervision of a professional on behalf of the plaintiffs, in order to prevent the continued dampness in their apartment.  They also petitioned to instruct the plaintiffs to repair everything necessary in the plaintiffs' apartment as a result of the dampness and leaks.  They also sought to charge the defendants with legal expenses and attorney's fees.
  4. On March 24,2025, defendants 2-3 filed a statement of defense in which they admitted the existence of dampness in the plaintiffs' apartment, but claimed that the responsibility rested in full on defendant 1.  In the statement of defense, it was claimed that the dampness began in 2020 after air conditioners were installed in the defendants' apartment during the fourth quarter of 2019, which were connected to drainage pipes built by defendant 1.  It was claimed that after the air conditioners were activated, it turned out that water had penetrated the plaintiffs' apartment from the drainage pipes.  It was claimed that during August 2020, work was carried out by defendant 1 in the defendants' apartment - partial dismantling of the flooring in the bathroom to discover a drainage pipe of the master shower, work in the shower stall and restoration of the flooring.  It was also claimed that on October 21,2020, defendant 1 dismantled the shower stall and the wall adjacent to it, after detecting a leak from the air conditioner drainage pipes.  In the statement of defense, it was claimed that there was an opinion on behalf of defendant 1 that was not attached to the statement of claim and that its findings should be based.
  5. Since a statement of defense was not filed on behalf of defendant 1, and at the request of the plaintiffs, a partial judgment was issued against defendant 1 on May 12,2025, according to which " the defendant must carry out all the necessary repairs to apartment No. 7 at 7 Nahlieli Street, Tzur Hadassah (hereinafter: "the plaintiffs' apartment") in order to prevent the continued dampness in their apartment and to repair all the dampness damage in the plaintiffs' apartment.  Since the proceeding is ongoing in relation to defendants 2-3, in which it is expected to clarify the manner of repair and what the moisture damage is, all that will be decided in this context will be binding on defendant 1 (with respect to the manner of repair - both of the source of the dampness and of the damage caused to the plaintiffs' apartment).  To the extent that defendants 2-3 are also found to be responsible, the liability will be jointly and severally..." On May 13,2025, a decision was issued ordering the correction of a clerical error in the partial judgment of May 12,2025.  In which it was stated: "...  Further to the judgment given on May 12,2025, I order the correction of a clerical error - the plaintiffs' apartment is apartment No. 7 at 10 Nahlieli Street, Tzur Hadassah.  In addition, it is clarified that defendant 1 will also be obliged to carry out, in order to prevent dampness in the plaintiffs' apartment, all the necessary repairs in the apartment of defendants 2-3, as these will be determined, to the extent that they are determined, later in the proceeding..."

The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916

1
23Next part
Skip to content