Supreme Court Dismisses Lawyer's Appeal as Frivolous, Imposes Heavy Costs
תומצת מתוך Bizportal על ידי baba
The Supreme Court dismissed lawyer Moshe Weinberg's appeal regarding a Tel Aviv building deal, calling it "frivolous" and ordering him to pay 40,000 shekels in costs. This follows a District Court ruling that also rejected Weinberg's 2.4 million shekel lawsuit against Pegasus. The courts found that Weinberg and his company breached the combination agreement and acted in bad faith, while Pegasus acted reasonably. The Supreme Court upheld the District Court's findings, concluding no legal errors were made.
הידיעה ב-5 שורות · תקציר של baba
- Supreme Court labeled lawyer Moshe Weinberg's appeal as frivolous, ordering him to pay 40,000 shekels in costs.
- The appeal stemmed from a 2.4 million shekel lawsuit filed by Weinberg against Pegasus over a Tel Aviv building deal.
- The District Court previously dismissed Weinberg's claims, criticizing his son's testimony as unreliable and evasive.
- The courts found that Weinberg breached the combination agreement and acted in bad faith.
- Pegasus, controlled by Gabi Berger, was found to have acted reasonably in the dispute.
The Supreme Court has labeled a lawyer's appeal concerning a combination deal for a Tel Aviv building as "a frivolous appeal following a frivolous lawsuit." Justices Ofer Groskopf, Gila Kenfy-Stein, and Ruth Ronen summarily rejected the appeal filed by attorney Moshe Weinberg. Weinberg was ordered to pay 40,000 shekels in costs, adding to a previous 170,000 shekel penalty imposed by the District Court.
Weinberg and his company, M.V. Investments, which he co-owns with his wife Nili Weinberg, had sued Pegasus, controlled by Gabi Berger, for 2.4 million shekels. The dispute centered on a combination deal for a building on Mazeh Street in Tel Aviv owned by Weinberg. The agreement was signed in December 2018, but Weinberg canceled it in June 2020, alleging Pegasus had breached the contract.
Weinberg's lawsuit claimed Pegasus failed to advance the combination deal and did not obtain their consent for documents submitted to the municipality by Pegasus's architect. Pegasus countered that they acted reasonably to promote construction, and it was the Weinbergs who delayed plan submissions and interfered with the planning process due to their dispute.
District Court Judge Yaakov Shaked had previously dismissed all of Weinberg's claims, criticizing the testimony of their son, Eran Weinberg, who represented them in the project. Judge Shaked found Eran's testimony illogical, evasive, and unreliable, stating the facts presented a reality opposite to his account. The judge described some of Weinberg's claims as "absurd," "baseless," and "unproven," noting that a claimed email was not found among the evidence and that the Weinbergs had not proven their alleged damages with an appraiser.
Judge Shaked concluded that the Weinbergs breached the combination agreement by canceling it instead of following dispute resolution procedures. He also found no basis for the claim that Pegasus missed deadlines for building permits, as no such deadlines were established. The judge determined the Weinbergs acted in bad faith, aware of the submitted plans but raising objections only later, hindering any resolution and acting suspiciously. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's factual findings and legal conclusions, finding no error in its ruling.
מוזכרים
לא אותו אירוע: ידיעות אחרות שחולקות עם הידיעה הזו אנשים, מקומות או נושא. רקע, תגובות והמשכים.