On January 9,2025, the plaintiff filed an urgent request with the court for temporary relief, in which she petitioned to seize the defendant's rights in the apartment, or alternatively, to issue an order prohibiting the defendant from making any disposition of his rights in the apartment. At the same time , on January 12,2025, the plaintiff filed a statement of claim, in which she petitioned for enforcement of the draft contract, as well as for a monetary compensation award in the amount of the agreed compensation, together with linkage and interest differences. Alternatively, the plaintiff petitioned to require the defendant to pay monetary compensation for conducting negotiations in bad faith, in the amount of the discount of ILS 170,000 that the defendant gave her from the price of the apartment, together with linkage and interest differences. Alternatively, the plaintiff petitioned for a judgment of reliance damages in the amount of ILS 132,738 , for the damages and losses caused to her as a result of the sale of her apartment in Kiryat Bialik, which, according to her, was done for the purpose of financing the purchase of the defendant's apartment.
In my decision of January 12,2025, I found no reason to grant the plaintiff's request for ex parte interim relief, and I instructed the defendant to submit his response to the motion. After the defendant's response was submitted, on February 3,2025, a hearing was held on the application. In my decision, which was given at the end of the hearing, I rejected the motion, after finding, on the basis of the testimonies heard before me, that there was no final agreement between the parties and certain things necessary to conclude a contract. In the meantime, I noted that despite the parties' claims that the contacts between them were conducted through the attorneys and the mediators on their behalf, no affidavits were submitted on behalf of any of the attorneys or mediators.
The plaintiff filed an application for leave to appeal the decision of February 3,2025 (Civil Appeal Authority 21735-02-25 Ella Padwa v. Daniel Moshe Kirschenbaum [Nevo]). In her decision of March 13,2025, the Honorable Justice R. Ronen suggested that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed, while both parties would preserve their rights and claims. This was in light of the defendant's clarification that at this stage he does not wish to advance a transaction for the sale of the apartment. The plaintiff objected to this proposal, and the defendant agreed to it.