Adv. Mr. A. Amorai: Don't answer, I object to the question.
Adv. Mr. T. Rotman: What should we oppose?
Adv. Mr. A. Amorai: Excuse me, wait. It's exactly him. Excuse me, we're in a legal proceeding, I'm allowed to object.
The Honorable Judge D. Chasdai: All right. With your permission, I will try to formulate the questionSir, he knows how to link cancer to the air pollution of a relative.? You don't know. You don't know how to connect.
The witness, Mr. A. Brautman: No, of course I don't.
(page 901 and page 902, lines 7-15).
- Civil Appeal 8356/22 The Attorney General v. Golan (published in Nevo, August 26, 2025) (hereinafter: "The Golan Case"), ruled regarding the necessity of a 'personal cause' in a class action, inter alia as follows:
... This court has only recently discussed the purposes of the requirement for the existence of a personal cause of action, and we will turn to the following:
First, from a formal point of view, the class action is nothing more than a procedural instrument for consolidating claims in the matter of several plaintiffs – and therefore it does not confer a substantive-independent cause of action. In the meantime, it can be said that in the absence of a personal cause of action, the representative plaintiff is, in practice, powerless, in the 'hopeful' sense, vis-à-vis the defendant. Second, there are those who argue that the appointment of the representative plaintiff over the class members may ensure more appropriate and proper representation of their common interest, compared to a situation in which they are represented by a 'foreign' party. Third, the possibility that a lawsuit will be filed not by a person who was directly harmed by the defendant, let alone a class action – raises concerns about abuse of the class action mechanism, inter alia, in order to harm the defendant or for personal gain. As is well known, this concern is an inherent concern for the class action mechanism, but it only intensifies in such circumstances. Fourth, it should be emphasized that strict adherence to the requirement for the existence of a personal cause of action also provides a certain protection in the defendant's case, in the sense that it preserves his right to cross-examine the representative plaintiff in order to prove his defense. It also allows the court to use the 'story' of the representative plaintiff with the personal cause, as a kind of 'case study' for the class action as a whole. Fifth, and although it is well known that the lawyer is the 'living spirit' behind the class action venture, and not the representative plaintiff, it can also be argued that the requirement for the participation of a representative plaintiff with a personal cause of action in a class action – and as a derivative thereof, his entitlement to remuneration, may incentivize victims to contact a lawyer in order for him to file a class action on behalf of the class members, of which they belong (emphases added – 11; Civil Appeal 7125/20 Success for the Promotion of a Fair Company v. UBS AG, paragraph 225 of the judgment of Judge H. Kabub (January 2, 2025) (hereinafter: the UBS case)).