Not only did the plaintiff not present evidence to contradict all of the aforesaid, but already at the beginning of the proceeding, in the course of the submission of court documents to the network, the plaintiff believed that it was sufficient to provide a presentation to one of its managers, including the declarant on their behalf (see: Appendices to a notice dated January 14, 2024). Moreover. Mr. Kfir Barak was asked in his cross-examination about all aspects of the plaintiff's period of employment, as well as insofar as they relate to defendants 2-6. Therefore, it seems that even according to the plaintiff's own opinion, this witness is the appropriate factor to respond to the matter in their own name. In other words, where the matter served the plaintiff, he claimed that one party was acting on behalf of all the defendants, and at the same time, within the framework of the same proceeding, he also claimed the opposite in an attempt to obtain a judgment in the absence of a defense. Therefore, there is no basis for the argument that defendants 2-6 did not appear in the proceeding or did not defend themselves against it, and hence the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed both on its merits and by virtue of the rule of judicial estoppel (regarding judicial estoppel, see Various Many: Civil Appeal (Supreme) 9056/12 King v. Jerusalem Tax Assessor, 2Judgment 11 [Nevo] (August 4, 2014)).
- Another related argument of the plaintiff relates to the question of the representation of the defendants. Thus, the beginning of Mr. Kfir Barak's cross-examination was devoted to proving the plaintiff's claim that Mr. Kfir Barak does not have a power of attorney to represent defendants 2-6 (from p. 40, line 23 to p. 42, line 9). However, in this matter the plaintiff made a mistake. The question of appearing in the proceeding and defending oneself against it, as opposed to representation on behalf of a lawyer, are, as is well known, separate questions. As we have determined, defendants 2-6 appeared in the proceeding and defended themselves against it, and the plaintiff did not prove that Mr. Kfir Barak, who is one of the three most senior entities in the chain, is not authorized to bring things on behalf of defendants 2-6. In fact, this is a mere claim.
As for the representation of Adv. Shira Fadida, representing the defendants, we will begin with the first insights, according to which