Similarly, this rule was applied in a Pinui-Binui project by the Honorable Judge Ovadia in Civil Case (Tel Aviv District) 49303-10-20 Nir v. Shashua, at paragraph 100 (July 12,2023):
"The court is required to examine the equality between the considerations granted to the owners of the apartments in the project in a material manner, and the required equality does not necessarily mean that all apartment owners will receive the same consideration as the owners of a neighboring apartment in the condominium. It appears that in the circumstances of the case, there is substantial equality in the project, and the defendants did not claim or prove that the consideration they would receive was less than that received by the other apartment owners in relation to the registered area of their apartment, or that the consideration offered to them was calculated on the basis of a different calculation for the addition of the expanded area in their apartment in relation to the other extended apartments in the project, or that the calculation was not based on a practical and professional appraisal."
(See also Civil Case (Tel Aviv District) 42823-03-24 Keren Or - Manpower Services Ltd. et al. v. Ilana Babu (May 11,2026), by the Honorable Judge Hess).
- Based on the indications as detailed above, I will turn to examine the issues in dispute in this case.
- I will begin with the question of whether the threshold conditions were met, according to which there is a privileged majority among the apartment owners in the Pinui-Binui cluster who entered into a Pinui-Binui transaction. In the present case, the defendants claim that the existence of such a majority has not been proven, and that they even claimed this in their statement of defense, and moreover, that they did not waive their claims when they agreed to the procedural arrangement (in which the parties waived the submission of affidavits of the main witness). The plaintiffs, for their part, claim that the claim should be rejected, since from the procedural arrangement that the parties agreed to in this proceeding, it clearly emerges that the parties agreed that a decision in the proceeding would revolve only around the appraisal claims.
After examining the mutual arguments, I am satisfied that in the present case, the defendants' arguments that there is no sufficient majority for the project should be rejected.