Accordingly , it claimed that the loss of the partnership transaction with KBI and the consideration that was supposed to be paid to it in respect of the partnership transaction (ILS 25 million), as well as future profits that it would have received had the partnership deal with KBI been realized.
Therefore, she petitioned to charge the municipality with the full amount.
- I saw fit to reject this demand, which is entirely speculation about a project that was not actually born because the conditions sustaining its existence were not met. The transaction was not realized because of the position of the Ministry of the Interior and not because of the Municipality. The Municipality failed because it did not update the company in real time about the factual situation, with an emphasis on the refusal of the Ministry of the Interior to approve such an agreement.
The company's engagement with any third party on an agreement that has not yet been approved is business speculation that does not establish the company a right to compensation for it.
Legal Expenses
- In addition, the company petitioned to charge the municipality with legal expenses for which it was required as follows:
- Payment of the court fee - in the sum of ILS 250,000, provided that the amount of the claim is limited to the sum of ILS 10 million.
- Attorney's fees - It is claimed that the sum of ILS 310,000 has been paid for the purpose of conducting the proceeding.
- Payment of expenses to the expert - a sum of approximately ILS 15,000, for the expert opinion of the CPA Moshe Sitton.
- Given the above, and given the amount awarded, I saw fit to oblige the Municipality to continue to bear the company's expenses for conducting this proceeding, expenses that also include attorney's fees in the sum of ILS 500,000 together with VAT in accordance with the law.
Conclusion
- This improper conduct of the municipality should be condemned in every way and only hope that it will be learned by other municipalities and local/regional authorities.
Given all of the above, I see fit to oblige the Municipality to continue to pay the Company the following amounts:
- Linkage differentials - a sum of ILS 493,751 in respect of linkage differences that should have been made, as of the date of CPA Sitton's opinion (January 15,2025). To this sum should be added linkage differences and interest from January 15,2025 until the date of actual payment.
- If necessary, VAT must be added to this payment.
- Payment of interest in accordance with the law that will be added to the amount of the usage fees paid by the Company to the Municipality. The interest calculations will be calculated accordingly and will begin from the date of payment made by the Company (a sum of ILS 4 million as of April 6,2016 and a sum of ILS 1 million as of June 14,2016) until the date of actual payment, and in accordance with the partial refund of the amount made by the Municipality.
- Reimbursement of expenses incurred by the Company for the purpose of promoting the project in the amount of ILS 986,814 (as of January 15,2025). This amount will bear linkage and interest differentials from January 15,2025 until the date of actual payment.
- Legal expenses in the sum of ILS 500,000 together with VAT in accordance with the law. This sum will bear linkage differences and interest from the end of 30 days from the date of the judgment until the date of actual payment.
It should be noted and emphasized that the amount of the claim was set at ILS 10 million, and accordingly a court fee was paid. Of the aforementioned amount, the sum of approximately ILS 5 million was paid to the company, and therefore the framework for the balance of its claim is ILS 5 million and no more.