He later repeated his words and testified that: " We have no future if we continue to work for the plaintiff, following the fact that my father left, yes, I did not see any future, I have no future, because there was no one to protect me" (p. 12 of the transcript at paras. 33-34).
- It should also be emphasized that Amir's testimony showed that he did not hear my father's conversations and dealt with matters that he had to deal with (p. 7 of the transcript of Q. 10), nor did he have any connection to the heating products of the Polish company as the plaintiff tried to claim. He later testified that the issue of his departure and the establishment of the company was not discussed at all, but only after he left his job at the plaintiff (p. 11 of the transcript, paras. 36-38; p. 12, paras. 1-3) and did not even know that Avi and the plaintiff were thinking of entering into an engagement Sometime after the end of my father's work (p. 13 of the transcript at paras. 1-9).
- In light of all of the above, and since the plaintiff's claims against Amir have not been proven, even with prima facie evidence, and that his testimony is reliable and acceptable to us and has not been contradicted, the lawsuit against him in all its aspects should be dismissed.
The remedy for the breach of the employment contract by my father as well as the breach of the duty of good faith and loyalty
- The management of my father's private business created a clear conflict of interest and harmed the plaintiff's interests. According to the evidence, Avi worked energetically on behalf of Iris Marketing and Yaakov, who competed (even if not entirely) with his employer. Avi did not disclose to the plaintiff about his activities while he was employed as an employee of the plaintiff and thus breached his contractual obligations, as well as the duty of loyalty and good faith, acted as the long hand of Iris Marketing in a conflict of interest while he was still employed by the plaintiff. In addition, my father carried out the actions while he was working at the time he was supposed to work for the plaintiff to maximize her sales and profits. All this while using the computer, mobile device and office services provided by the plaintiff.
- After considering all the considerations listed in the ruling, and given the breach of the employment agreement by Avi, along with the breach of the duties of loyalty and good faith towards the company as clearly evident from his conduct, and after examining the circumstances of the case, our decision is that Avi must pay the plaintiff compensation in the amount of ILS 120,000 without proof of damage.
- It should be noted that this remedy was ruled by us even though the plaintiff inadvertently stated that she was petitioning for punitive damages, without bothering to explain why, in her opinion, this is the appropriate case for awarding punitive damages in the requested amount of ILS 500,000. The plaintiff referred in this matter to the Lupo case, which was conducted in the Economic Department of the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court (Civil Case 25839-01-19 Ben Yehuda et al. Vitner (August 16, 2021), where it was noted that alongside the legislature's rulings on specific laws as noted in the judgment, the Supreme Court's rulings recognized a general authority to award punitive damages, which would be reserved for exceptional and limited cases only. However, there is no explanation as to why in the circumstances of the case at hand such compensation should be awarded.
Order for Settlement of Accounts
- In the statement of claim, the plaintiff petitions for an order to provide accounts of all engagements of Iris Marketing and/or Sky or Avi with entities or companies, as well as in the framework of tenders in the medical field during the period of Avi and Amir's employment with the plaintiff and three months thereafter. In addition, the plaintiff is requesting an order to provide accounts for all the funds transferred by Iris Marketing to Avi A/or Amir and/or Sky from January 1, 2020 until September 30, 2020, or until the date of filing the lawsuit or any other date that the court believes is the appropriate date for doing so.
- After examining the plaintiff's arguments and the materials of the case, we found no reason to grant the plaintiff's comprehensive and extensive request. According to case law, a claim for the provision of accounts is conducted in two stages, as follows:
"In order for the plaintiff to win an order in the first stage, he must prove the existence of two conditions: first, he must show the existence of a special relationship between him and the defendant that justifies the provision of accounts (see Civil Appeal Authority 5064/90 Sassi v. Arza Wineries T.R.Z. in the Tax Appeal [2], at p. 132). Second, he must prove - even if prima facie - that he has "a right to sue with respect to the funds in respect of which he wishes to receive accounts..." (Civil Appeal 4724/90 A.S.T. Finances inTax Appeal v. United Mizrahi Bank in Tax Appeal [3], at p. 584). If these conditions are met, and in the absence of any other reason justifying refraining from providing the accounts - such as confidentiality or the absence of the need for the accounts for the purpose of financial clarification - the court will issue an order for the provision of accounts."