Caselaw

Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 16283-06-23 S.T. Zehavi Ltd. v. Non-Stop Radio Ltd. - part 5

July 28, 2026
Print

"In addition, and in exchange for the provision of services as a broadcaster in the scope of 2 weekly programs of 2 hours each, during the period from June 1, 2018 until March 31, 2019, the contractor will be paid monthly consideration in the amount of ILS 25, 000." It was determined that VAT would be added to the consideration (section 3( and it was also determined that: " The aforementioned constitutes the complete and final disposal of all the claims of the contractor and Natan Zahavi for the period up to June 1, 2018."

  1. There is no dispute that although the addendum to the agreement of July 23, 2018, expired on March 31, 2019, no additional agreement was signed between the parties. In addition, and specifically with regard to the consideration that was paid from the date of termination of this addendum onwards, I note that no evidence was presented to show what consideration was paid to the plaintiffs from that date onwards.
  2. The parties do not dispute that Zahavi's style is blatant and therefore that over the years of the engagement, a number of situations arose in which, following Zehavi's remarks on the air, the station was required to deal with the requests of the Second Authority (hereinafter: the "Regulator" or "the Second Authority"), in which it was claimed that Zahavi's remarks constituted a violation of the rules of regulation.

In the affidavit of Attorney Sommer on behalf of the station, examples of cases in which he himself defended the station and Zahavi in the framework of complaints submitted to the Second Authority.  It was also detailed that in April 2010, the Second Authority received a complaint against the defendant regarding the violation of a publication order by Zahavi, which was handled by Adv. Sommer, who defended the station and Zahavi's freedom of expression in his program.

It was also detailed that during the month of January 2011, the Second Authority received complaints against the station regarding an alleged escalation in Zahavi's remarks.  As appears from Adv. Sommer's letter dated March 23, 2011, which was attached as Appendix 2 to his affidavit, the station initiated a meeting in which Zehavi and representatives of the Second Authority also participated, and understandings were reached without imposing fines on the station.  I will note that in this letter, Adv. Sommer explained, in paragraphs 4-6, that:

Previous part1...45
6...46Next part
Skip to content