In light of all this, I find it necessary to determine that the elements of the tort of fraud exist on Shabbat and therefore that he can be held personally responsible for the fraudulent actions carried out by Global and its employees.
- Given my determination that Shabbat can be held personally liable in accordance with the provisions of section 54 of the Companies Law, I am not required to activate the mechanism set forth in section 6 of the Companies Law - i.e., to lift the veil. At the same time, I am of the opinion that in the circumstances as proven, and especially given the mask of concealment in which Shabbat took part towards the plaintiff, in any case the condition set forth in section 6(a)(1) of the Companies Law is met, since the use of the separate legal personality of the company was made in a manner that is capable of deceiving the plaintiff.
- contributory fault;
However, the determination that Global was wronged against the plaintiff in a fraudulent tort and that Shabbat should be held liable for this tort is not sufficient, as the defendants further claim that the compensation that will be imposed on them should be reduced, due to contributory fault or contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that since this is a fraudulent tort, in accordance with the precedent as determined in the Apel case, there is no reason to order any deduction for contributory fault.
After examining the arguments of the parties in this regard, I am satisfied that the defendants' arguments should be partially accepted, that the plaintiff is also responsible for the damage caused to her, and that the contributory rate of guilt should be set at 50%.
In detail, the issue of reducing the amount of compensation for the contributory fault of the injured party is regulated in section 68(a) of the Torts Ordinance, which states:
"If a person suffers damage, partly due to his own fault and partly due to the fault of another, a claim for compensation for the damage will not fail due to the fault of the injured party, but the compensation to be paid will be reduced to such extent as the court deems appropriate and just, taking into account the degree of the plaintiff's liability for the damage..."