The only tenant who opposed the NPA in Ramat Gan and accused the developer of fraud won the defamation lawsuit filed against him
The tenant who refused to remain silent revealed the lies
Photography:
Envato Elements
Produced by the Department of Special Supplements
Can an entrepreneur in NAP 38 file a defamation lawsuit against a refuser, in order to discourage the tenant's legitimate rights?
A precedent-setting judgment of the District Court dismissed the appeal filed by an entrepreneur and a contracting company against a judgment rendered in their claim against a tenant.
This rejected a claim of about three and a half million shekels (for toll purposes, the claim was set at about two and a half million shekels).
The obligation of the contractor and the developer to pay the tenant attorney's fees in the amount of NIS 100,000, in addition to the payment of legal expenses, also remains the same.
The beginning of the affair in the TMA 38 project that they wanted to carry out in a building with dozens of apartments in Ramat Gan. All the apartment owners signed that they agree, except for one tenant.
Attorneys Vered Cohen and Raanan Bar-On, representing the tenant who refused, proved that there were failures in the construction plan that the developer wanted to carry out and caused the building permit granted by the local committee to be revoked.
During the court hearings and the appeals committee, the tenant sent numerous letters to the municipality, tenants, the chairman of the appeals committee and the judge hearing his case. In his letters, the tenant claimed that the developer "cheated the local planning and construction committee";
"Acts by way of deliberate deception and repeated attempts at deception";
"Continues to lie and deceive with a determined forehead."
The building permit given to the developer and the contractor was revoked, and they lost the construction project they wanted to carry out.
The developer and the contracting company have filed a huge claim against the tenant for damages for malicious intent to harm them.
Attorneys Bar-On and Cohen argued on behalf of the tenant that this lawsuit was intended to intimidate the tenant into abandoning his justified opposition to the project.
The court ruled that the tenant has many protections.
It was determined that the amount of the claim is unfounded and trivial, and that it is a strategic claim, which was filed against the background of the developer's threats against the tenant.
It was determined that the tenant's notices were sent in good faith and were intended to protect a personal kosher interest and to express an opinion on the developer's conduct.
Want to stay up to date all the time?
Sign up now for the Real Estate Newsletter today
Talking real estate with Ofer Petersburg. Listen to the new podcast >>
Ramat Gan deputy mayor Adam Koenigsberger, who served as chairman of the municipality's audit committee at the time, testified that the developer had misled the local committee and that in all his years he did not remember such a serious case.
After examining all the evidence, the court ruled that the tenant found himself confronted by a powerful and cunning entrepreneur.
The tenant demonstrated just motives and good faith, and coped boldly with the situation, despite the impact of the struggle on his health.
The court ruled that this was a strategic lawsuit, intended to deter the tenant from standing up for his legitimate rights - exposing the developer's conduct.
At the conclusion of the judgment, the judge wrote: "From the considerations intertwined above as rhymes in the string, according to which in relation to publications the tenant has protections of publication during a hearing, telling a truthful and stable matter in a public matter, "And if traces of toxins of abuse in court proceedings are found in the lawsuit, the lawsuit is rejected in its entirety."
Produced by the Department of Special Supplements