It is not established that Mr. Zaruk stole the said customer from a bonus company.
- the "Gihon" water corporation;
According to the Bonus Company, Mr. Zaruk, in the course of his work at the Company, made use of its work products, which were created when it was the one that provided the services of collecting development levies to the corporation in the matter of the Hebrew University.
However, this claim has not been proven.
Apart from Mr. Goldian's affidavit (paragraph 90 of his first affidavit and paragraph 40 of his second affidavit), which is the only testimony of a litigant, no additional evidence was presented. The agreement with the corporation was also not attached, nor were any other "work products" established, the use of which could have established a basis for liability.
- This totality shows that a bonus company did not present an evidentiary basis that could support its claims regarding improper customer theft. Such theft has not been established.
- Bonos further claimed that she could not substantiate her arguments in this matter in light of my decision regarding the splitting of the hearing. Therefore, it refrains (in accordance with the decision of April 13, 2022; and see also the decision of August 5, 2022( to summon the treasurers of the municipalities and corporations to testify in order to question them in relation to Mr. Zaruk's appeals to them.
However, my decisions were given with regard to proving the amount of compensation, i.e., the amount of income that Mr. Zaruk received as a result of the competition that was alleged to have been carried out illegally. Bonus Company's request (dated December 21, 2021( to summon witnesses was fully accepted, with the exception of one witness whose testimony was requested regarding Mr. Zaruk's alleged negligence. It should also be noted that the witness, Mr. Yitzhak Vidavsky, the treasurer of the Holon Municipality, who was summoned to testify, did not testify at the end of the day, after he did not show up for the hearing, and the company waived his summons to another date (p. 597, S. 8-4). The Company's claim in its summaries in the counterclaim (at paragraph 122.18), that I refused to approve his summons, is incorrect.
- I therefore reject the claims of the Bonus Company at the head of the counterclaim.
The claims of the Bonus Company for gross negligence in the manner in which the work was carried out by Mr. Zaruk should be rejected
- In the claims of the Bonus Company for negligence in Mr. Zaruk's work, there has been a development. In the counterclaim, she petitioned for compensation in the total amount of ILS 2 million for the purposes of fees (see paragraph 123(b(). At the end of the day, the company set the amount claimed in its summaries at ILS 1, 252, 456 including VAT (paragraph 127.c. for summaries in the counterclaim). She claimed that Mr. Zarrouk was negligent in preparing billing notices for three specific properties to three different taxpayers, which were not sent by him to them. The following properties are in question: the Muslim cemetery in Ramla, the Greek Patriarch in Ramla, and Tel Aviv University (paragraphs 62-64 of the summaries of the counterclaim).
- In any event, the aforementioned arguments should be rejected.
As we have seen, in the original counterclaim, the bonus company did not properly detail its claims in the matter. No details were provided regarding the non-delivery of the payment requirements, and the statements Bo There were only generalities.