Compensation by virtue of another law
- In addition, and this discussion is also relevant in relation to the plaintiffs' claims that they should be awarded compensation by virtue of the Torts Ordinance, even if as an alternative route of compensation under the Torts Ordinance where they will not be awarded statutory damages and exemplary damages (since it is not possible to sue both compensation without proof of damage and compensation that requires proof of damage - see Civil Appeal 7426/14 Anonymous v. Uri Daniel (March 14, 2016)). Although the natural place to discuss this is after a discussion of the entitlement and the respective remedies by virtue of the Aviation Services Law, it is not possible to read section 16 of the Aviation Services Law in isolation from the context in which it appears in such a way that a place where a passenger is not entitled to remedies by virtue of the Aviation Services Law, then it is possible to attack under any other law that appears in the statute book and receive relief for the same cause for which the claim was filed and the damage caused. This is not a case where the Aviation Services Law does not apply, but rather where the Aviation Services Law applies, and then just as it is not possible to receive double compensation for the same damage under the same factual event by virtue of section 16 of the Law, so too it is not possible that where the law applies and excludes compensation, then the compensation will be received from another source. Thus, statutory compensation contains compensation for mental anguish, and therefore where it was not awarded due to an exemption granted by the legislature to an airline, it was not possible by virtue of another law to award it mental anguish, to which the plaintiffs claim that there is no factual dispute that they experienced great mental anguish. According to the explanatory notes to the Aviation Services Law, the statutory compensation in the Aviation Services Law is intended to ensure a legislative response to the shortfall that existed - "financial expenses in addition to non-pecuniary damages caused to them by the disruption of their plans" due to the cancellation of the flight. Therefore, where it has been decided that there is no reason to award statutory compensation, then compensation for the same matter should not be allowed indirectly through a mental anguish ruling, since then the meaning is, as stated, a ruling in any situation of flight delay, even where the law excludes the receipt of benefits in general, and the receipt of statutory compensation in particular. The "agreed" statutory compensation imposed on a flight organizer or operator is the sum that was formulated after extensive discussion between various representative bodies of the interest of flight organizers and operators and the interest of passengers and bodies specializing in the matter, including the lateral implications in any aspect prior to the enactment of the law, and which embodies the mental anguish of the flight event, which is inherent distress for every passenger in such claiMs.
In a Class Action 46233-02-17 Hillel Akiva Barak v. El Al Israel Airlines in Tax Appeal (May 15, 2022) (pending an appeal in the Supreme Court when the motion to certify a class action was partially granted) The court addressed the question of whether it is possible to sue by virtue of other laws, including by virtue of The Torts Ordinanceand states that the plaintiffs may sue only for causes and damages included in the Aviation Services Law, the Air Transport Law and the Convention, and nothing more, by virtue of the principle of the uniqueness of cause set forth in Article 29 of the Montreal Convention, according to: