Civil Case (N) 4843-03-20 Aviram Becker v. El Caspi Case – Supreme Court Israel Airlines Ltd. - part 54

However, beyond the fact that the defendant did not argue regarding the absence of a prior written application in the statement of defense, but only in summaries at the end of the proceeding, when it is her duty that any stipulation regarding the fulfillment of her duties is supposed to be for the benefit of the consumer as stated in the law, and taking into account the purposes inherent in the law for the purpose of imposing compensation, for example, the "knowingly" component can also be legitimized retroactively.  In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs detailed why, according to them, the defendant breached its duty to provide benefits and assistance services.  While there is an honest dispute as to whether she provided food or communication or accommodation, and indeed at the end of the day, it was decided in her favor, but not without hesitation, and the probabilistic balance worked in her favor for the reasons detailed, despite her claims in retrospect regarding the fact that she had fulfilled her obligation by agreeing to reimburse expenses retroactively and was not required in real time (but reality showed, through the station manager, as opposed to the legal advice, that in practice she does assist in real time by default, and if this is not successful, then she turns to a channel of reimbursement of expenses And even this by way of an offer and not by default where the passengers are at the airport "under the supervision of" the station manager) - even though they claimed that Shabbat did not offer consideration for an alternative flight ticket, it did not see it as an obligation for it to offer, as detailed at length in its summaries.  If the purpose of imposing compensation, for example, is deterrence, and if the goal is to prevent her from repeating this behavior, and if the early application is the main evidence to prove her awareness of the demand and she refuses in any case, even when she is aware of it, and for this there is no "exemption" on the grounds that this is an honest dispute, then there is also no relevance to the passenger's non-cooperation with regard to an earlier application that was disabled empty-handed.  Therefore, I rule that each of the defendant plaintiffs will pay ILS 200.