Drafting (Tel Aviv) 42571-01-23 Emanuel Manor v. Maayan Priluk

Counsel for the plaintiff:        Adv. Guy Ophir, Adv. Roy Ben David

Counsel for the defendant:     Adv. Oren Weinberg

Judgment

Part One, Introduction - The Matter of the Judgment and the Remedies Claimed; Reference to additional proceedings; Details of the witnesses who were heard; The Outcome of the Procedure

1. The Matter of the Judgment
   • The matter of the judgment is a claim that was filed in respect of claims of defamation and in accordance with the Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965. The claim petitions for damages in the sum of ILS 250,000, as well as the issuance of an injunction and an injunction.  The lawsuit.  The lawsuit was filed in respect of publications made by the defendant, who is a journalist, mainly against a surrogacy company with which she and her spouse entered into an agreement.  The lawsuit was not filed by the surrogacy company, but rather by its former controlling shareholder, who is also a former CEO of the company.  The company's name is "M.L.  of the Manor Refuah Group - The Israel Therapeutics and Surgery Company Ltd.", hereinafter referred to as "The Surrogacy Company".  As can be seen, the name of the company bears the name of the plaintiff when it did not separate the names at all, even after he stopped working for the company and transferred the ownership thereof to others.
   • The lawsuit began on October 7, 2021, and in an engagement between the defendant and her spouse and the company in a surrogacy agreement, which was defined as an agreement to accompany parenting proceedings abroad. The surrogacy process is carried out in Georgia and with a local surrogate (hereinafter: the "Georgian surrogate" or "the surrogate", as the case may be).  During the procedure, and after a fetus was absorbed into the womb of the Georgian surrogate - she disappeared and "could not be reached".  In the statement of claim, it was claimed that the surrogate's disappearance lasted for only a week, and that she was eventually located with her family members (the quote and description, from paragraph 9 of the statement of claim).
   • At the end of the day, the surrogacy process fails at a very early stage, as early as the 11th week of pregnancy. The statement of claim described the termination of the procedure as a "natural abortion."
   • The plaintiff sold the surrogacy company and even stopped working in it as of April 1, 2022. All of this is close to the events of the lawsuit.  Moreover, the plaintiff emphasized in the statement of claim that he and his family "came to the defendant's aid, even though the plaintiff no longer worked for the company" (paragraph 20 of the statement of claim).
   • More than four months after the plaintiff had already ceased to be an employee of the surrogacy company and in any case transferred it to others - on August 21, 2022, the defendant published a publication about "Manor/Danel". In the publication, the defendant referred to the sale of Manor to Danel.  Subsequently, the defendant published three additional publications, and the lawsuit was filed here for the publications.  It should be emphasized that the claim was not filed by the surrogacy company to which the publications referred, but by the plaintiff who sold his shares in the surrogacy company.  A plaintiff who left his job at a surrogacy company a few months before most of the publications and in any case before the lawsuit was filed.
2. Remedies Required

The plaintiff petitions three:

• Compensation without proof of damage, in the sum of ILS 250,000.
• Granting an injunction instructing the defendant to remove publications it made in relation to the plaintiff, including those detailed in the statement of claim.
• Issuing an injunction prohibiting the defendant from publishing defamatory publications about the plaintiff.

3. Two additional proceedings that began after the lawsuit here
   • A lawsuit filed by the defendant and her spouse against the surrogacy company and other defendants, including the plaintiff here

• In May 2024, about four months after the lawsuit was filed here, the defendant and her spouse filed a claim in the sum of ILS 1,291,000. The lawsuit was filed in the framework of civil case 78597-05-23, which is being conducted before another tribunal against four defendants - against the surrogacy company; against the Danel (Adir Yehoshua) company in a tax appeal that acquired the surrogacy company; and the lawsuit was also filed against the plaintiff here and against his daughter, who was previously employed as a manager in the surrogacy company.
• As part of the lawsuit filed by the defendant and her spouse, it was claimed that the surrogacy company undertook to proceed with the accompaniment of a team of Israeli doctors , and despite this , the surrogate was placed on leave for three weeks, without medical supervision. In the additional statement of claim, the plaintiffs referred to the company's conduct of surrogacy, omissions and violations of Georgian law, as well as a series of other claims relating to Israeli law.
  • Another lawsuit filed by the plaintiff here against the defendant

While the proceedings here are underway, the plaintiff added and filed another lawsuit in August 2024 concerning defamation.  The additional lawsuit referred to two publications, including one publication that appears in an affidavit of the main witness filed by the plaintiff in the proceeding here.  The additional claim filed by the plaintiff is being conducted before a different panel.

4. The Witnesses in the Proceeding
   • As part of the proceeding, affidavits were submitted and cross-examinations were heard in eight different testimonies, as detailed below:

• On behalf of the prosecution, only the plaintiff himself testified.
• Seven testified on behalf of the defendant:
• the defendant herself;
• the plaintiff's former partner in the surrogacy company - Dr. Pavel Itzikson;
• Four women who were clients of the surrogacy company - Ms. Y.N., Ms. A.P., Ms. S.S., Ms. A.Z.K.;
• He is a volunteer in the 'Parents for Parents in Surrogacy Journey' association who is also the father of two daughters born in the surrogacy process in Georgia - Mr. A.A.

The names of the witnesses and witnesses who underwent the surrogacy process are deliberately presented in initials only.  The four witnesses and the witness were indeed exposed by their full names, but it would be more prudent at this stage not to disclose these names in the framework of the judgment.  The publication of the names of witnesses in legal databases, on the Internet and on any possible website is something that will remain forever and it is doubtful whether it will be possible to remove it.  On the other hand, nothing will be detracted from the judgment if the reference to the testimonies is brought without revealing the full names of the four witnesses and the witness.  For the avoidance of doubt, it should be said that the determination regarding the reference in the judgment to the names with initials only, is brought before the parties' positions have been heard.  Hence, to the extent that even after the judgment a request is made to publish the full names of the witness and the witness, I will address it. 

5. The Outcome of the Judgment

At the end of the judgment, the claim will be dismissed, while the plaintiff will be required to pay legal expenses and attorney's fees, all as detailed below.