In the framework of the previous lawsuit, the defendant submitted an affidavit of main witness (Appendix 3 to the defendant's exhibits) with a chapter entitled: "The documents by which the defendant processed my life". In language that is not clear, the defendant expressed his feeling that he had fallen victim to an act of fraud committed by the plaintiff against him. that the plaintiff betrayed his trust and took money out of him on false claims. The question of whether the defendant was able to prove these claims is irrelevant, but only that this was his feeling.
There is no escaping the conclusion that the defendant, therefore, with a full stomach for the plaintiff in view of a business dispute that arose between them and which was clarified in the previous lawsuit, sought to harm the plaintiff by means of the book. The defendant used his skills as a writer to create a fictional story that, even if it was intended to express the defendant's desires as a creator, was also intended to harm the plaintiff.
I accept the plaintiff's argument and determine that the publications were made with the intention of harming the plaintiff and establish the possibility of awarding double compensation to the plaintiff.
- After it was found that the variety of publications made by the defendant should be viewed as a single package, the plaintiff has the right to compensation without proof of damage accordingly. This right derives from the tort of defamation and also from the violation of privacy.
The amount of compensation due to the plaintiff takes into account the sophistication in the manner in which the injustices were committed against the plaintiff, under the guise of a fictional creation, and the intention to harm the plaintiff. In view of all this, I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of ILS 150,000 for defamation and an additional sum of ILS 50,000 for the violation of privacy.
- The plaintiff petitioned for an order instructing the defendant to remove the publications from any media in which they were published.
Section 9(a)(2) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law establishes the court's authority to order as follows: