The publication is similar in essence to the third publication that I have just discussed in section 11.4 above. There is no room to accept the argument that the publication is defamation of the plaintiff, and in this regard the following will be brought:
- The first and main reason why we should not accept the argument that the fifth publication is defamation (the publication refers to the surrogacy company) - once again it should be emphasized to you that the fifth publication does not refer to the plaintiff at all. The publication referred to the conduct of the surrogacy company. As to the fact that the publication does not relate at all to the plaintiff and in order not to burden the judgment here, I will refer to the reasons stated in section 11.3.1 above.
- The second reason why the claim that the fifth publication is defamation (expression of opinion) should not be accepted - here too it should be noted that the publication is an expression of opinion and referred to your personal opinion that is being sued. Again, it should be noted that this is not a baseless opinion, since it has already been clarified above and the facts and criticism that was leveled at the sale transaction were presented. It should also be said that this is not a far-fetched opinion - which has already been clarified and presented above how, miraculously, after the sale of the surrogacy company, it turned out to be an empty vessel. As for a publication that is an expression of opinion, in order not to burden the judgment here, I will refer to the reasons stated in section 11.2.2 above.
- Third reason why the claim that the fifth publication constitutes defamation (a claim for silence) should not be accepted - once again we must wonder why the lawsuit was filed in respect of this publication, when the plaintiff made no claim and remained silent in the face of press publications and against Danel and its officers. Here, too, the characteristics of a proceeding whose purpose is a silencing claim can be clearly seen. As to the fact that this is a claim for silence, in order not to burden the judgment here, I will refer to the reasons stated in clause 11.2.3 above.
- Publication Sixth of Seven - the publication specified in section 6.2(c) above
A publication dated 16/1/2023 that related to the surrogate company. The publication included a picture of Danel's CEO, as well as a picture of the plaintiff and a reference to previous publications. The publication states that the defendant is collecting material for a large television investigation about the surrogacy company as well as other companies. Here, too, the statement of claim was careful not to cite the quotation of the publication, but it was attached as an appendix to the statement of claim. The publication reads: "We have recently collected from all the couples into a large television investigation about Manor, Danel and other companies, then we will turn to the legal side and I hope we will help you find out."