In the case before me, as in the case heard in Civil Case 16319-12-13, the defendants did not claim that a claim could not be filed by virtue of the tort of negligence for invasion of privacy, and therefore I will also leave the question for consideration.
- In addition, the question of the relationship between the protections set forth in section 13 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law and a claim by virtue of the tort of negligence was also permitted to be examined:
"I am also correct to assume the position of the respondents, even though without deciding on the matter, that when the same act or omission allegedly indicates both defamation and negligent conduct, and when that act or omission is permitted by virtue of absolute protection under section 13 of the Law, it is possible and this will also negate the claim by virtue of the negligence laws for that act or omission." (Civil Appeal (Central District) 60755-06-13 Shifra Hazan v. Navon Weisfeld Accountants (15 July 2014), which was approved by the Authority of Civil Appeal 6270/14 State of Israel - Ministry of Health v. Shifra Hazan (24 November 2014))
- In any event, there is no dispute that when a claim is filed for invasion of privacy by virtue of the tort of negligence, the plaintiff must prove all the elements of the tort, including the damage, and it is not possible to claim compensation without proof of damage on the grounds of negligence (see, for example, the Khalilia case, mentioned above).
- Finally, before we turn to the facts of the case before me, I deem it appropriate to refer to the judgment in a civil case (Shalom Tel Aviv) 7945-09-19 Anonymous v. State of Israel - Courts Administration et al. (March 14, 2022). The matter of the claim of Anonymous v. Courts Administration and Nevo Publishing in a Tax Appeal is the publication of a judgment of the Family Court that was given in a divorce proceeding between the plaintiff and her former spouse. Naturally, the proceedings in the Family Court were conducted behind closed doors. After the judgment was rendered, the Family Court ordered the publication of the judgment, omitting identifying details of the parties. Indeed, the names of the parties and other identifying details were omitted from the judgment, and it was published on the Net HaMishpat website. A copy of the judgment, as written and worded, was also transferred to the legal databases and published on the Nevo website. However, the Family Court's judgment mentions the number of additional proceedings conducted by the parties before it in the District Court against a third party. Since the proceeding in the District Court was not confidential, it was possible to review the names of the parties to it, and in this way learn about the identity of the parties in the proceeding conducted in the Family Court. The lawsuit there was filed against the Courts Administration, which allowed the publication of the judgment without omitting the number of the additional proceeding, and against Nevo Publishing Ltd., which operates the Nevo website, which published the ruling.
- In the judgment regarding the publication (by the Honorable Justice Ronen Ilan), the claim against the court administration was dismissed, and it was determined that a lawsuit could not be filed against it due to judicial immunity over the manner in which a judgment that was permitted to be published, and the details included in it. In addition, it was determined that Nevo Publishing House in a tax appeal acted in good faith when it published the judgment as it was informed by the court administration, and therefore it has the protection set forth in section 18 of the Protection of Privacy Law, and the lawsuit against it was also dismissed. It is not clear from the judgment there whether the defendants there claimed that the publication of the judgment is a permissible publication by virtue of section 13 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law.
- In summary, when civil lawsuits were filed for the retroactive publication of a judgment or documents as part of a legal proceeding, the claims were dismissed, either because the publication is permitted, or because of judicial immunity and good faith.
Once the legal framework has been clarified, the time has come to examine the facts of the case before me.