Against this background, the counter-plaintiff filed a motion to amend the statement of claim, in which she first tried to add the missing details, in order to meet the procedural detail duties imposed on her.  However, this request was submitted late, and without the necessary basic explanation.  It was rejected, as was an application for leave to appeal (see above at paragraph 22).  Therefore, we are left with what is stated in the original counterclaim, and what is stated therein is insufficient.  Therefore, I reject the counter-plaintiff's petition to award compensation in respect of him.

123. In addition, Bonus did not substantiate its claims that the relationship between Mr. Zaruk and his subordinates suffered from difficulties that harmed his work, or that he did not invest enough, or that his law studies came at its expense. Here, too, things were argued in general, and general statements by employees connected to a bonus company are not enough. The counter-plaintiff should have presented a difference in Mr. Zaruk's work output, or any other objective data in order to substantiate her claims.  This was not done.

The Weinberger firm's liability was not established

124. The cause of action against the Weinberger Law Firm in the counterclaim is the tort of causing breach of contract.  It was claimed that the firm cooperated with Mr. Zaruk while lending a hand to the violation of the non-compete clause and the confidentiality clause in the second agreement.

125. Our approach so far makes it clear that the Bonus Company has not been able to substantiate its claims against the firm. I determined that the non-compete clause was essentially null and void, and that the bonus company had not proven that Mr. Zaruk had breached the confidentiality clause, when no trade secret had been established. Against this background, Mr. Zaruk could have competed with a bonus company, and the fact that he operated, in some respects, within the framework of the firm, does not constitute the responsibility of the latter.  Bonus claimed that the firm also caused, together with Mr. Zaruk and Mei Ad, a breach of the contract signed between it and the three employees who had resigned from it.  However, as we have seen, its arguments in this matter have not been substantiated.  Against this background, I am exempt from deciding the question of whether the firm can be held liable for Mr. Zaruk's actions, by virtue of the partnership law.

Interim Summary

126. The main stumbling block to the calculation between the parties was embodied in the claim of the Bonus Company that it is governed by the non-compete and confidentiality clauses. It was claimed that Mr. Zarrouk violated them, and hence the results of the breach lead to Mr. Zarrouk owing funds to the company and not the other way around. These claims were rejected.  The claims of improper use of the list of customers, or that their solicitation entitles the bonus company to compensation, were rejected.

The counterclaim was therefore dismissed in its entirety.

127. Against this background, the way was opened for the settlement of the accounts between the parties in the framework of the main claim.

The Accounting between the Parties - Appointment of an Expert to Examine the Balance of the Debt and its Character

128. In the concluding part of this judgment, I will relate to the need to appoint an expert in order to complete the calculation between the parties, and to some of the considerations that he will have to take into account in the course of carrying out the work. By the way, I will relate to the disputes that were discovered between the parties inrelation to the said calculation.

Proven work

129. According to the Bonus Company, Mr. Zaruk did not prove the "proven work" he had done, as stipulated in the agreement that he must do (in the penultimate one paragraph), and he had not yet proved what work he performed in relation to each of the old files from the list of cases. Therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation, and the main claim must be dismissed in its entirety.

The claim should be rejected.

130. The main claim includes a component of a demand for the provision of accounts (see paragraphs 106-107 of the claim), and this remedy was requested when Mr. Zaruk was unable to prove the scope of his work in each case.

In its summaries, Bonus claimed that Mr. Zaruk was its partner (see paragraph 53 of its summaries in the main claim).  She did so after initially claiming that she was not like that.  In any event, when a bonus company admits the special relationship that exists between the parties, there is room to grant the claim for the provision of accounts, unless a reason is presented to refrain from doing so, and no such real reason was presented on its behalf (Civil Appeal 127/95 Fruit Production and Marketing Council v.  Mehadrin Ltd., IsrSC 51(4( 337, 344-345 (1997).