The result whereby a tortfeasor - and a "commercial" harmful substance - will shake us out of a lawsuit due to claims of assignment of obligations (and certainly a merger), is unacceptable. The expansive approach to which my colleague's words are directed with regard to section 22 is therefore an interpretation of the law and not a circumvention of it, and this interpretation is correct and does not distort the texts [emphases added].
The Honorable Justice Grosskopf also noted in his judgment Other Municipality Applications 2840/21 Adv. Guy Gissin v. Deloitte Brightman Zohar Almagor & Co., Accountants (published in the databases; 2022; at paragraph 15) that "... The rulings of this Court over the past decade have further eroded and weakened the normative power of the provision of section 22 of the Torts Ordinance, and have given further validity to the position that this provision does not block the use of the mechanism of assignment of rights, including tort rights, when this is in accordance with legitimate economic needs, and does not give rise to the concerns that led to the prohibition on assignment of rights in torts." Such is the case before me.
- Therefore, the defendants' petition to dismiss the claim in limine due to the prohibition on assignment of rights in tort should be dismissed. The softening of this prohibition undermines the groundwork under the argument.
Ben-Gurion University's liability for the theft of the trade secret that justifies declaratory relief or injunction has not been established
- So far, Professor Seroussi's responsibility for the theft and use of the plaintiffs' third trade secret has been established. But he was not sued alone. It is now necessary to examine whether the liability of Ben-Gurion University and the Negev Company, which justify theremedies sought in the framework of this action, has been established.
- The plaintiffs claimed that the project was developed and researched within the framework of the university, and that the university had rights to it. According to them, its liability arises by virtue of sections 2 and 13 of the Torts Ordinance, which deal with the liability of an employer for the torts of his employee "if he did so as an employee and when he performs the normal functions of his work and those involved therein". This responsibility can arise even if it is a matter of "improper performance" of his work.
On the other hand, the defendants argued that the responsibility of the university should not be recognized, insofar as the liability of Professor Seroussi is determined. It did not control his conduct, in light of the academic freedom available to him; She did not allow or ratify the act, nor was she involved in his actions. In addition, it was claimed that Prof. Seroussi's dominant goal was personal-business.
- After considering the arguments of the parties, I found that the plaintiffs' arguments in this matter should be rejected.
Section 2 of the Torts Ordinance, entitled "Definitions", states: