Before signing his judgment, Justice Rubinstein suggested that since this is a matter of tort matter, the arbitrator to be appointed should be skilled in these matters and that he should explain his ruling.
- Judgments in the Hopper case, Amir and Katz all dealt with cases in which the plaintiff had a contractual cause of action or that such a provision was breached, and as a result, a tort cause was also created. This is not the situation in our case. Grounds for defamation between a soccer player and his coach - As in our case, Inna Arises from contractual relationships.
- However,, According to the majority opinion on the matter Katz:
"Even if the Applicant's tort claims were not directly related to the agreement between him and the group, and this is not the case in the matter before us, there was no reason to deny, in part, the transfer of the hearing thereof to the Arbitration Institute. This approach is consistent with the rule according to which when the court is required to give an interpretation of an arbitration clause, it will choose, among the possible interpretations, the interpretation according to which the dispute between the parties must be clarified in the framework of arbitration rather than an interpretation according to which the dispute must be clarified before the court...This is all the more true when we are dealing with arbitration by virtue of the Sports Law."
Admittedly, this is not a positive determination, but rather a statement that "there was no room to deny", but it seems that the adjudicator's intention is to prefer a broad interpretation of the arbitration clause.
- The circumstances of the case are in a soccer match in which the defendant replaced the plaintiff with another player, while allegedly spreading statements according to which the plaintiff "finished the story” and that he "sold the game." According to the claim, these statements were made during and at the end of the game, in the soccer field compound, and near the dressing room, and their hearers are parties connected to the team and the world of football. Thus, in the circumstances of the case, there is a justification for transferring the hearing to the arbitration institution of the Football Association. Given other circumstances, it is not impossible that the result would have been different.
- As a conclusion, I will note that the plaintiff petitions in his claim that the court will award non-pecuniary compensation of up to ILS 300,000, according to her estimate. This matter also has implications for my decision.
The arbitration institution is not bound by the substantive law, and it is necessary to examine whether the delay of proceedings in a defamation claim filed with the court, and its transfer to the arbitration institution, constitutes a violation of the procedural advantage available to the victim of defamation, where a claim for compensation is filed without proof of damage under section 7 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965.
- In light of the above, I order the stay of the proceedings in this action. The body authorized to hear the plaintiff's claimsJan The Arbitration Institution of the Football Association.
- No order for expenses.
Granted today, February 12, 2015, in the absence of the parties.