"By the power of the defendants: What transaction was made without his knowledge?
The witness, Mr. Matzliah: There were no deals made, it was impossible to make deals without his knowledge, we sat down, the distance between us was like the distance between me and the judge's chair at the moment.
The Honorable Judge Tzadik: But you didn't have a mandate to make transactions and then update it?
The witness, Mr. Matzliah: No, in general it was impossible, because even if I had a mandate to deal with transactions and I wouldn't update him online, you can't pick up the phone without him knowing that we're sitting half a meter from each other.
The Honorable Judge Tzadik: You can send emails.
The witness, Mr. Matzliah: He sees my emails, it's them, he sees that he has the same as I have today, my email appears with him as well, he has a lot of email boxes in Outlook.
The Honorable Judge Tzadik: What do you mean he sees every email you have?
The witness, Mr. Matzliah: Absolutely, every incoming email he sees as well.
The Honorable Judge Tzadik: But he doesn't sit next to you all the time.
The witness, Mr. Matzliah: He sits in the back, sitting like the distance between you and me. During the Corona pandemic, there were no meetings.
The Honorable Judge Tzadik: I didn't understand, you say he sees,
The witness, Mr. Matzliah: My father's email, AVI@ATST like Amir's email @ATSA and so on , are emails in his Outlook that he sees online.
The Honorable Judge Tzadik: You meant Outlook, not that he sees from the screen.
The witness, Mr. Matzliah: He doesn't see it from the screen, he sees it online. Emails are received from hospitals and so on, see online.
The Honorable Judge Tzadik: Your box is open,
The witness, Mr. Matzliah: My box is open at any moment."
(p. 34 of the transcript of May 12, 2024, paras. 7-29).
Despite the importance of the matter, these substantive arguments have no support for my father's affidavit and were raised for the first time, as stated in his testimony before us. It was not proven, therefore, that the matter was viewed "online" by Tsafrir and that he consented to the execution of the transactions by Avi in real time.
- However, from my father's testimony we learn that he agreed that the plaintiff would review the contents of the emails in the professional box that was made available to him. It should be clarified that a review of Avi's employment agreement shows that he was absent from reference to the policy on the use of the email box, and that Avi's specific consent was not given. At the same time, while this is my father's professional box, and when most of the documents are documents relating to my father's professional activity for third parties (and not personal documents), and while my father was carrying out illegal activity, while claiming that Tsafrir was aware of all the "online", my father knew about the plaintiff's access to these documents and gave his consent to it.
- According to the counter-defendants' version, they did not view the documents in real time, and these were discovered after the termination of Avi and Amir's employment, and after they received suspicious emails regarding unknown conduct, therefore, there are circumstances that justify entering into these correspondences (Section 32 of the Protection of Privacy Law). Therefore, we are of the opinion that Avi's claim for compensation for this component by virtue of a breach of the employer's duty of good faith (which, as stated above, was not sued), as well as the argument that these documents should be disqualified, should be dismissed.
- With regard to my father's private Gmail inbox, it is clear that the plaintiff had no permission to enter my father's personal inbox. Therefore, the bank statement statements that the plaintiff attached are inadmissible as evidence, and the relief claimed in the amount of ILS 159,000 on the basis of the transfers enumerated in these printouts is rejected, not only because he was not sued in the amended statement of claim at all, but also since it is not clear what is the authoritative source for attaching my father's personal documents without his consent, who petitioned to remove them from the file (paragraph 6 of the counterclaim) and without clarifying how they came into the plaintiff's hands when we did not find a way to accept the vague claim that she raised according to which they were found in its servers. However, we note that although it is not clear how these documents were received by the plaintiff, it has not been proven that the plaintiff did indeed hack into my father's personal email in the absence of a proper opinion on the matter. We are aware of the correspondence between Avi and Tsafrir on June 30, 2021, when my father informs Tsafrir that he is trying to hack his Gmail account and Tsafrir's reply that his son is trying to set up the phone account for another email account. In addition, we did not lose sight of the complaint to the police that my father submitted on this matter and the letter of the attorney. This evidence, which was done prior to the filing of the lawsuit, indeed raises the suspicion that acts were allegedly committed that would not have been done by the plaintiff, but as stated, there is no factual anchor, such as an expert opinion, for the alleged hack and there is a possibility that they were found on the plaintiff's server, as my father testified that he transferred all the documents there. Moreover, even if it was possible to unequivocally determine that the plaintiff had broken into the plaintiff's personal mailbox, it would not have been possible to grant relief by virtue of the law, when no relief was claimed by virtue of the plaintiff's breach of the plaintiff's duty of good faith towards her one of her employees.
Lifting the corporate veil
- According to the plaintiffs, the defendant against Tsafrir is the living spirit in the company and the only decision-maker in it. The company's actions are those of Tsafrir and he is the one who deceived Avi and Amir in an attempt to deprive them of the rights to which they are entitled under the law, while hiding behind the company's separate legal personality and committing offenses of impersonation, forgery and invasion of privacy. Tsafrir led to the non-payment of the rights to which Avi and Amir are entitled by virtue of labor law, while creating a hostile work environment towards Amir.
- According to the counter-defendant, it was not claimed or even proven that the use of the company's legal personality was made in order to deceive a person or to deprive the company of its abandonment, or in a manner that harms the purpose of the company, while taking an unreasonable chance as to its ability to repay its debts. In the absence of proof of one of the grounds justifying lifting the corporate veil, and when it is a solvent company operating normally, the demand to lift the corporate veil and charge Mr. Tsafrir for the company's debts should be rejected.
- Section 4 of the Companies Law, 5759-1999 (hereinafter - the Companies Law) regulates and establishes the principle of the company's separate legal personality.
The exception to the principle of separate legal personality is found in section 6 of the Companies Law. The section lists the cases that justify lifting the veil by the court: