The State to Compensate Building Offender with 200,000 Shekels

The Magistrate's Court in Jerusalem recently ruled that the state will pay compensation of about 200,000 shekels to a Palestinian whose building in the eastern part of the city was damaged due to the implementation of a demolition order for unauthorized construction issued for the second floor. Judge Miriam Casselsi ruled that the state was negligent when it exceeded the administrative demolition order, and therefore it must bear the damages.

This concerns a building in the Ras Khamis neighborhood, adjacent to the security fence, which the plaintiff used for trade and the production of disposable tools. It was built more than a decade ago without a permit, and at some point, an administrative demolition order was issued for the second floor. The demolition was carried out in two stages – one in March 2021, and the second about a year later, when a significant part of the ceiling on the ground floor was also destroyed.

Consequently, the property owner turned to the court and demanded compensation of about one million shekels – about half the amount for damage to the building, and the other half for the loss of goods and equipment. The state argued in response that the demolition of the ceiling was included in the demolition order, or alternatively that it was not a case of "gross negligence". It was further argued that restoring the situation to its previous state would mean leaving a building that was built illegally. The state insisted that the full blame lies with the plaintiff - since if the illegal building on the ground floor had not been built, the second floor would not have been built anyway, and then there would have been no need for the demolition order, and the damage to the ceiling would have been avoided.

But Judge Casselsi emphasized that it is not possible to apply an administrative demolition order to prohibited works carried out before its issuance, certainly not a decade before that. According to the ruling, she noted, the authority is not authorized to demolish buildings that were not explicitly included in the order, and such an action constitutes self-help, exceeding authority, and gross negligence, which creates an obligation to compensate the injured party. It follows, therefore, according to her, that the general principle preventing a situation where a sinner emerges rewarded – "no cause of action shall arise from a wrongful act" – retreats in this case, due to a specific law that grants a cause of action for compensation for damage caused due to an illegal act by the authority.

Incidentally, the judge leveled sharp criticism at the state's procedural conduct, and in particular at its choice to attach to its conclusions some court ruling without her permission: "Attaching new evidence to the conclusions is an act that should not be done, and the freedom that the State of Israel took upon itself to act in such a poor manner – is shameful".

She ruled that on a legal level, the demolition of the plaintiff's ceiling constitutes negligence and a breach of a statutory duty by the state, which justifies holding it liable for the cost of its repair. On the other hand, it was determined that there is no basis for the plaintiff's request for additional compensation for loss of equipment and inventory. "When an enforcement authority is required to carry out a demolition, it must ensure that it demolishes only what is included in the demolition order," the judge wrote. She noted that although the order subject to the proceedings was issued legally, "the demolition of a significant part of the ceiling of the existing building was not included in it", and therefore it is negligent work. Ultimately, the judge ordered the state to pay the holder of the ground floor, due to the ceiling damage, compensation in the amount of 198,279 shekels, plus 7,000 shekels in legal expenses.