This personal involvement placed these defendants, who are directors of the companies concerned, liable for personal charges, after it was found that in the case of each of them, the foundations of the torts in question as well as the contractual grounds were fulfilled (Civil Appeal 725/78 British Canadian Builders in Tax Appeal v. Oren, IsrSC 35(4) 253, 256 (1981); (Civil Appeal 407/89 Tzuk Or in Tax Appeal v. Car Security Ltd., IsrSC 48(5) 661, 694 (1994)). These conclusions lay the basis for extending the liability to the shoulders of each and every one of defendants 2-8, and this is what I do.
Stipulation of Jurisdiction
- It would have been better for her to argue that the settlement agreement in which the plaintiff was forced to choose established the jurisdiction of the courts in the State of Belize, that it would not be invoked. First, if there is indeed nothing between the defendants and the plaintiff and the conduct towards her, what does this have to do with the jurisdiction clause? Second, I have already written above that this agreement was a multi-detail agreement, which was drafted unilaterally, and apart from the plaintiff's details and the amount that she was allowed to withdraw, it appears to be a uniform contract for all intents and purposes. that the plaintiff was forced to sign it in a time of trouble and was presented with the only option to present something of her money. This is, without any doubt, a discriminatory contract and its jurisdiction clause - that sends people to faraway Belize and its legal system - All the more so.
Contributory Fault
- A comprehensive reading of the material lays a foundation for the idea that the plaintiff had an arm and a leg in the miserable tractate, which was laid out before this court. Even in view of the fact that she was deceived, it is clear that the plaintiff did not stop when any sensible person in her situation would have stopped; Because it continued to transfer funds despite its losses, and that it continued, even in times of stress, to show considerable interest in investment channels and the power to make a profit through them. If the defendants had only invoked the doctrine of contributory fault, this court would have considered applying it here. However, the defense was so busy distancing the plaintiff and her affairs from her that such an argument was not mentioned, not even implicitly, in the statement of claim. I didn't blame it on my own initiative.
The Result
- I accept the claim and obligate defendants 1-8, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiff the sum, together with linkage and multiplication differences. By Interest Rulings and Linkage Law, 5721-1961 from the date of filing the claim until today, that is, a total of NIS 225,300 for the causes of action. These defendants will also pay, jointly and severally, to the plaintiff legal expenses in the sum of NIS 15,100, including the fees paid, the plaintiff's appearance for the evidentiary hearing in court, and the cost of operating and calling the testimony of the representative of the investigation company. Third, defendants 1-8, jointly and severally, will pay the plaintiff attorney's fees in the sum of NIS 47,800, including VAT. In determining this last amount, I took into account not only the aforesaid In the Regulation 153 To the Regulations of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the Bar Association (Recommended Minimum Rate), 2000-2000 And not only the estimated scope of the legal work that was required to be put into the management of the prosecution, but also the fact that I had difficulty accepting the credibility of the testimonies of the defense witnesses. The sums awarded must be paid within 20 days of the receipt of this judgment (the days of the summer recess of the courts are counted). Delay will add arrears fees according to Section 5A to the aforementioned Interest and Linkage Rulings.
The deposit, which the plaintiff deposited in accordance with a decision dated November 23, 2020, will be returned to her for its fruits.