In this context, and first of all, I will note that a perusal of the statement of defense on behalf of the defendants reveals that their claims regarding the absence of a majority are incoherent. Thus, in paragraph 78 of the statement of defense - in response to the plaintiffs' claim in paragraph 9 of the statement of claim that there is an absolute majority of the apartment owners for the project and that the defendants are recalcitrant tenants - the defendants argued in paragraph 78 of the statement of defense that the aforesaid is denied since they are not recalcitrant tenants. In other words, they did not deny the very existence of the required majority. Moreover, in paragraph 87 of the statement of defense, the defendants claimed that no signatures were presented on the Pinui-Binui agreement, but subsequently, they did not claim that the existence of a majority was not proven, but the court was only asked to instruct the plaintiffs to present a clear and up-to-date table of signatures.
Moreover, I am of the opinion that contrary to the defendants' arguments, in agreeing to the procedural arrangement, the defendants expressly waived their arguments apart from those that were forwarded to the court's expert's opinion. Thus, in a notice dated January 6,2026, which was forwarded by the defendants, in response to the plaintiffs' proposal and accordingly that the evidentiary hearings would be canceled and the parties would submit their summaries, the defendants announced that:
"7. The defendants are of the opinion that the expert's opinion fully confirms their claims as expressed in the statement of defense as submitted on their behalf, and subject to receiving the answers to the clarification questions, then, out of a desire to streamline the proceeding and save judicial time, a slight update is proposed to the procedural arrangement proposed by the plaintiffs. An arrangement that preserves the right of the defendants to present their claims fully and appropriately before the honorable court.
- The defendants request that it be determined that the preliminary hearing will be held on time, i.e., on March 17,2026 at 08:30, and in addition, one hearing will be scheduled in which the expert will be questioned by the parties about his opinion. This is in lieu of the submission of affidavits of the main witness on behalf of the parties, which is not necessary due to the expert opinion that provides the answer in relation to the two issues in dispute between the parties.
- After the conclusion of the expert's interrogation, the plaintiffs will be given 30 days to submit their summaries, and after their submission, the defendants will be given 30 days to submit their summaries."
From the aforesaid, it appears that the defendants did claim that the change to the arrangement would enable them to present their arguments in a full and proper manner, but, contrary to their claims in their summaries, they did not announce that they were upholding all of the arguments raised by them in the statement of defense. Rather, they expressly agreed that there was no longer a need to submit affidavits of the main witness, since the expert opinion provides a solution in relation to the two issues in dispute between the parties.