Apartment owners suing an urban-renewal developer over late delivery were nearly at the end of the evidence stage when the developer asked for an extra hearing in 2027 to cross-examine the court-appointed expert and his assistant expert. The court denied the request because the developer had ignored, for months, orders requiring it to act, and ordered it to pay ILS 1,500 in costs.
What happened
In 2021, the owners of an apartment filed a monetary claim for ILS 276,949 against an urban-renewal developer. They argued that the developer was late in delivering the apartment, and they also sought a refund for credits related to the apartment. In December 2022 the court appointed an appraiser and engineer as its own expert, and his opinion was filed in November 2024. The opinion also covered a counterclaim the developer had filed against the owners, which has since been struck out.
The developer asked to cross-examine, at the evidentiary hearing, the court expert and the assistant expert who worked with him. In May 2026 the court granted the request and ordered the developer to find out the two experts' fees for testifying and report them by 28.5.2026, so that it could deposit the amount with the court as a condition for summoning them. The developer filed nothing.
In June 2026 two evidentiary hearings were scheduled: on 7.10.2026, and a follow-up hearing on 15.11.2026, at which closing arguments would also be heard orally. In August 2026 the court gave the developer another chance, until 24.8.2026, and made clear that if it did not respond it would be treated as no longer insisting on summoning the witnesses. Again no update came, and on 25.8.2026 the court stated expressly that it assumed the developer had waived these witnesses. The developer did not respond to that decision either.
Only at the first evidentiary hearing did the developer say it intended to file a written request, and on 22.10.2026 it asked the court to schedule a hearing in January or March 2027 at which both experts would be cross-examined.
The parties' arguments
The developer's request gave no explanation for its failure to comply with the orders, for waiving the witnesses, or for the timing of the request. No affidavit was attached, and no extension of time had been requested.
The owners objected. They argued that the request was vague and did not even state the witnesses' fees, and they doubted the developer had contacted the experts at all, since they had received no copy of any such contact, even though an earlier decision required it. They also pointed to serious delay and undue hardship in a case opened in 2021, and argued that once the counterclaim was struck out, the expert's testimony was limited and the assistant expert's testimony was irrelevant. They added that the developer had not paid costs previously awarded to them.
The decision
The court denied the request. It explained that the request was presented as a technical matter of scheduling, but in fact ignored a series of decisions the developer had not complied with. The developer should have asked for an extension of time and explained its conduct. The request claimed the expert could not attend the earlier hearing because of a hearing in another case, but this was not raised in real time, neither before the hearing nor during it. The court also noted that in September 2026 it had granted the developer's request to drop one of its own witnesses, and even then the developer did not ask to summon the experts.
In the court's words, the developer was now trying, without any explanation, to "turn the wheel back". It had not even asked for the witnesses to be heard at the hearing already scheduled, which might have allowed that hearing to be extended and closing arguments to be filed in writing instead. An additional hearing in 2027 would delay the end of the case disproportionately, so it could not be allowed even in exchange for substantial costs. Had the developer acted on time, in May 2026, nearby dates could have been arranged within that same year.
The court added that the timing alone ruled out granting the request, and referred to Regulation 5 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018, under which there is a public interest in conducting proceedings efficiently, also for the benefit of other litigants. It accepted the owners' argument that the request was vague, noting that correspondence with the witnesses, if any existed, had not been attached.
The outcome
The request was denied, and the developer was ordered to pay ILS 1,500 in costs within 30 days, regardless of the outcome of the case. The claim itself is still pending, and the court has not yet decided whether the owners are entitled to compensation. This is an interim decision, and as a rule it can be challenged only by an application for leave to appeal.
Key takeaways
- Track every deadline the court sets for the other side; if it does not comply with orders, point this out to the court in writing.
- A party that wants to cross-examine the court expert is responsible for finding out the fee and depositing it on time; ignoring this may count as a waiver.
- A late request aimed at pushing the hearing into next year can and should be opposed: point to the age of the case, the dates already set and the lack of any explanation.
- If you yourself need more time, ask for an extension in advance and explain why; staying silent until the last moment can close the door.
- Even when such a request is denied, the main claim goes on; the decision only prevents delay and does not decide who is right on the merits.
This article summarizes a published Israeli court decision in plain language and is not legal advice. Every case depends on its facts. The parties' names have been omitted. This is a first-instance decision and may be appealed.
