For the purposes of the fee, the claim was set at the sum of ILS 10 million. (There is no dispute that after the filing of the claim, the Municipality returned to the company a sum of ILS 10 million. 5,075,635.79 ₪ )
The Municipality's Claims
- At the beginning of their arguments, the defendants argued for the dismissal of the claim of plaintiffs 2-3 against them in the absence of any rivalry with any of the defendants. It was also argued that the claim against defendant 2 should be dismissed in the absence of any rivalry with her.
According to them, plaintiffs 2 and 3 (Mr. Dean Wachter and BDI Entrepreneurship and Investments Ltd.) did not enter into a contractual or other relationship with any of them. It was claimed that plaintiffs 2 and 3 are shareholders in plaintiff 1 (together they hold 90%), and that their addition was intended only to inflate the statement of claim and create "imaginary damages".
The defendants emphasized the principle of privity of contract, according to which an agreement creates rights and obligations only towards the direct parties who signed it, and does not impose an obligation on a third party, and therefore there is no rivalry with these plaintiffs.
- On the merits of the matter, the defendants denied that they had misled the company or that they had acted intentionally towards it. It was claimed that the company knew well and was aware that the approval of the Ministry of the Interior was a suspension condition and that action should be taken to change the zoning plan. It was argued that the municipality acted lawfully and in good faith and did everything required of it to realize the transaction, worked tirelessly to change the zoning plan with the various parties and worked to promote the approval of the Minister of the Interior, believing that the Ministry of Interior's objection, as indicated by a letter dated November 2,2016, stemmed solely from the fact that the transaction was not in accordance with the zoning plan and that if the zoning plan was changed in a way that would allow the transaction to be advanced, the transaction would be approved. Therefore, the municipality claimed that it worked tirelessly to change the zoning plan.
- The Municipality rejected the company's claims, that it was aware of the Ministry of Interior's reservations about the publication of tenders that do not correspond to the current planning situation, and claimed that it relied on precedents of similar transactions approved by the Minister of the Interior, even when there were planning impediments or significant deviations from the estimate. In this regard, it referred to two real estate sales transactions with "Way-Box Real Estate" and "Zigdon of Boden" that were approved in 2014, as well as a combination sale transaction with "Bat Hayam Towers Ofek Construction and Development" which was approved in April 2015, even though in these cases the planning situation did not match the current situation.
- The Municipality argued that if the position of the Ministry of the Interior had been clear and sweeping at the outset, as the company wishes to present, a position that sweepingly rejects the holding of tenders or sales transactions that are contingent on a change in the planning situation, the Ministry of the Interior should have clarified this position to the local authorities in order for them to know how to plan their steps.
According to her, it was only following a letter from the Ministry of the Interior (from Ms. Carmit Fenton), which she received on February 18,2021, that the Minister of the Interior's position in principle that a transaction that was not in accordance with the zoning plan would not be approved on the date of publication of the tender.