"As to the degree of detail required of the plaintiff in a defamation suit, it was stated that: "In a statement of claim in a defamation lawsuit, it is necessary to point out the facts that establish all the elements of the cause of civil tort, namely: the element of 'publicity', the element of 'defamation' and the facts from which the liability of each of the defendants is derived. A plaintiff cannot be satisfied with the claim that the defendant libeled him, and he must state in his statement of claim "the details of the words, written or oral, that the defendant used." When the defamation was uttered orally, the plaintiff must state in his statement of claim the exact words that were spoken, and he cannot suffice with providing their contents" (Shenhar, pp. 420-421). In the DSP case, it was held that the "defamation" component requires sufficient detail for the statement that constitutes the cause of action, even if the words are not written in the statement of claim as a direct quote. The "publication" component requires details of the identity of the advertiser, the identity of the recipient or recipients of the publication, the date on which the words were said and the circumstances in which they were said. In certain contexts, additional details will also be required, such as the facts that establish the defendant's liability (for example, when a corporation is sued for a statement made by one of its employees), the place and framework in which the statements were made, or the identity of the people from whom the plaintiff heard about the publication that is the subject of the lawsuit."
- In accordance with the case law, my father should have specified the element of publication for defamation and the facts that establish the liability of the counter-defendants. None of this was done because my father raised in the counterclaim and in his affidavit that there were 4 incidents in which a violation of the provisions of the Prohibition of Defamation Law should be recognized, without any details of the statements that were made, andwhen and the element of publication.
- Moreover, the claims regarding Discount Bank have not been proven at all, it is not clear who said what the statement was and when it was made. This is a conversation that took place between the two, which indeed includes a non-positive attitude towards my father, but it has not been proven that the words were conveyed to the public and disseminated beyond the conversation that took place between Amir and Tsafrir.
- As for what was written in the WhatsApp group, it appears that this is a correspondence between Tsafrir and his employees, in which various claims and statements are raised against Amir and Avi, however, Avi did not include in his statement of claim or affidavit a reference to a specific statement to which he is referring and the element of publication was not proven, since there is no indication that the unacceptable conversation that Tsafrir had with his employees was indeed distributed to the public and brought to the public's attention as part of a public publication.
- As for the claim of publication in relation to the Polish company, in this matter as well, my father did not specify what those statements were, and as far as the reference is to Tsafrir's words to the company's representatives, in this matter as well, the element of publication has not been proven, it is not clear what statement was brought to the public's attention and when.
- In light of all of the above, in the absence of a basic detail of the statements attributed to the counter-defendants in each of the four incidents, and since the element of publication in relation to each event has not been proven, the claim should be dismissed even without addressing the defense arguments raised by the counter-defendant.
Mental anguish
- According to the plaintiff, he is entitled to compensation for the mental anguish caused in light of the criminal offenses committed by Tsafrir against him and Amir, while taking advantage of their diligence and filing a lawsuit against them in order to blackmail them and prevent a discussion of the rights to which they are entitled by virtue of labor law. The counter-defendants did not address the issue explicitly in their summaries.
- The ruling is that the court may award compensation for non-pecuniary damage, but such compensation rulings are at the discretion of the court and are reserved for special cases, and it was held as follows: "This court has repeatedly ruled that compensation for mental anguish is the exception and will determine in exceptional cases, the 'extreme and exceptional' (see Labor Appeal 360/99 Aharon Cohen v. State of Israel, [published in Nevo] PDA 38:1; Labor Appeal 480/05 Lior Ben Shitrit v. Anonymous, [published in Nevo] (given on July 8, 2008)).
- In the circumstances of the case under discussion, in light of the determinations regarding my father's conduct, which include a breach of the duty of good faith, the duty of fairness and reliability in the framework of the employment relationship between the parties, it is clear that there is no room for awarding compensation for this component. Therefore, his claim for compensation for mental anguish is rejected.
Impersonation and forgery
- According to the father of the counter-defendants, and in particular Tsafrir, he impersonated and identified himself to third parties under his own identity. It was claimed that Tsafrir impersonated Hananya from the company of the swearing-in and presented himself as if he were my father. He also impersonated Yaakov as it appears from Appendices J/5 and J/6 of his affidavit and even corresponded with Raffaello while impersonating my father, as well as infiltrating a Zoom call between Sky and Rafaello, impersonating him in front of the "Augusta" hospital when an email was written in my father's name. In respect of this component, Avi was sued in the sum of ILS 400,000.
- Tsafrir, on the other hand, argued that these were serious and criminal allegations that required the presentation of evidence beyond what was required in a civil proceeding, a burden that was not lifted by the counter-plaintiffs. The allegations attributing illegal impersonation to Safrir were made without any evidence to support the claim. From the moment the mobile phone and the corporate email are owned by the company, the use made of these means after the completion of the counter-plaintiffs' work is a use of the property it owns.
- A perusal of the file documents shows that there were several occasions in which emails were indeed sent that were ostensibly in my father's name. Tsafrir confronted this claim in his cross-examination, but claimed that there was another employee named Avi, Avi Rofeh (transcript of the hearing of May 6, 2024, p. 41, paras. 35-39) who had the same email as my father, the counterplaintiff. When he was asked whether a notice had been sent that my father had finished his work and that his position was a worker named Avi Rofe, Mr. Tsafrir replied that he did not remember (p. 36 of the transcript, paras. 2-12). It should be noted that these claims were first raised in Tsafrir's cross-examination and were not expressed in his affidavit at all. At the same time, the perplexities that arise from the alleged sending of the messages from an email box identical to the email box that was used by my father, while allegedly impersonating (to a number of parties) and which were not proven, do not indicate that he committed the offenses attributed to Safrir, which he denied throughout his interrogation. The counter-defendants referred to a document prepared by a computer expert on their behalf, in which it was claimed that the mailbox had been infiltrated, however, this was not an opinion and the editor of the document was not invited to testify to be questioned about the document he submitted on this matter.
- Beyond the aforesaid, the remedy claimed in respect of this component is not clear, since insofar as the intention is to impersonate while attempting to create a false party with the intention of defrauding, this is an offense regulated in section 441 of the Penal Law, 5737-1977, which is certainly not within the jurisdiction of the court, and therefore, the claim for compensation in respect of this component should be dismissed.
The right to privacy
- The Protection of Privacy Law, 5741-1981 states in section 1 of the law that:
"A person shall not violate the privacy of another without his consent"