Given that a judgment was given against Keinan and David in the absence of a defense, and taking into account that in the report regarding the holding of a preliminary hearing, it was noted by the parties that "the nature of the debt and the amount of the debt" are agreed, the question that needs to be decided is whether Uri should be personally obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount claimed.
I will preface the beginning by noting that after examining all the arguments, and reviewing the minutes and summaries of the parties, I decided to dismiss the lawsuit against Uri.
- The statement of claim states that the nature of the claim is "contractual, financial," and in paragraph 24 of the statement of claim it was noted that "the matter of the claim is contractual and in accordance with the laws of lifting the veil and personal liability."
From a perusal of the pleadings, it is clear that the plaintiff does not distinguish between the various defendants, each of whom is a separate legal personality.
Thus, for example, in paragraph 16 of the statement of claim, the plaintiff states that: "Until June 2021, the defendant paid the plaintiff the payments for the provision of manpower services," but no reference was brought from which it can be learned that the defendant, as opposed to Prestige, paid the plaintiff any consideration for the services she provided.
Thus, she claims that two months after the termination of the engagement with her, Uri knew that "he" would not continue the engagement with the landlord, without making a distinction between Ori and Prestige and/or Weisbord Holdings. Thus, it claims that Uri, as a manager and owner of "the company" , is personally responsible for the "bad conduct", but that Uri, unlike Weisbord Holdings, was not the shareholder of Luxury.
Similarly, the plaintiff relates to the debt as the "debt" of the defendants, while claiming that the defendants had no intention of settling their "debt", but that there is no dispute that Uri was not a party to the agreement and/or the agreement to sell the shares to David, and that no agreement and/or other contract was presented between Uri and the plaintiff, nor was it claimed that such a contract existed.