A tenant sued two neighbours for ILS 39,900, claiming a leak from their flats kept him from reasonable use of the apartment, and sought mainly a refund of rent. The court struck out the claim because no expert opinion was attached, the landlord was not joined and the tenant did not disclose that the owner had already been compensated.
What happened
A tenant claimed that for a long period he could not use the apartment reasonably because of a leak that, he said, came from the flats of two neighbours. He filed a small claim against them for ILS 39,900, almost the maximum that can be claimed in this track. Most of the amount, ILS 34,200, was a refund of the rent he had paid.
No expert opinion was attached to support the damage. In addition, the tenant did not join the landlord, the owner of the apartment, even though it was the landlord who had received the rent.
The parties' arguments
The neighbours asked for the claim to be dismissed at the outset, arguing that it lacked a basic factual foundation. The first neighbour argued that no expert opinion had been filed, and that he had already paid the owner, as part of a compromise, compensation for the alleged damage. In his view, awarding further compensation to the tenant would mean paying twice for the same loss.
The second neighbour pointed to agreements between the owner and insurance companies concerning the leaks. She said she did not know whether, as a result, the tenant had received a discount or credit on his rent. She also filed an expert opinion stating there was no support at all for the claim that the leak had caused damage. Her insurer, which she had joined as a third party, adopted her arguments and asked for the claim to be dismissed in the absence of an expert opinion from the tenant.
In a response filed on the court's instruction on 23.8.2026, the tenant said for the first time that, to the best of his knowledge, the insurer had reached an arrangement with the owner and compensated him. He did not say whether his rent had been adjusted as a result, and did not explain why he had not mentioned this in his claim. In a further response on 15.9.2026 he repeated his complaints of a mouldy smell and damp in the apartment, but still did not file an expert opinion, despite being given the opportunity. In the meantime, the court was told that mediation between the parties had failed.
The decision
The court held that the claim must be struck out in its current form, for two main reasons.
- Missing factual foundation. Even in a small claim, the claimant must present everything needed to decide the dispute. The tenant did not attach the agreement between the owner and the insurer, although he admitted, belatedly, that he knew about it. That document is central to examining the cause of action and the question of double compensation, and failing to attach core documents can on its own justify striking out a claim. Moreover, in claims about water damage, leaks and damp he should have filed an expert opinion, and having failed to do so without a satisfactory reason, the claim had to be struck out. The court added that when claiming such a large sum, a claimant must take the case seriously and support it properly.
- Essential parties missing. The tenant gave no reason for not joining the landlord, even though the main remedy sought was a refund of rent paid to him, or the insurer, which already held an expert opinion rejecting the damage. In the court's view, without these parties the dispute cannot be resolved efficiently and completely. A claimant does have the right to choose whom to sue, but that right is limited by the rules of procedure and has procedural consequences.
The outcome
The claim was struck out, with all parties' arguments preserved. As there had been no hearing on the merits, no costs were awarded. However, the court ordered that if the tenant files a new small claim against the same defendants on the same matter, he must first deposit ILS 4,000 with the court. The aim is to ensure that this time he fixes the defects and files a properly supported claim, so that the new proceeding is not a waste of time. The tenant must also present this decision when opening any new file.
A small claims judgment can be challenged by a motion for leave to appeal to the District Court.
Key takeaways
- Suing over a leak or damp? Attach an expert opinion when you file. Without one, the claim may be struck out before any hearing.
- If you are a tenant seeking a rent refund, consider joining the landlord, who is the one who received the money.
- Disclose up front any compensation, settlement or discount that you or the owner received for the same damage. Hiding it or revealing it late hurts your credibility and raises a risk of double compensation.
- Attach all core documents to your claim, including any insurance agreements you know about.
- A claim struck out for defects may be refiled only on conditions, such as a deposit. It is better to prepare it properly from the start.
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.
