Clause 3 of the settlement agreement states that "beyond the letter of the law, and without acknowledging the plaintiff's claims, and in particular after it has been agreed and clarified that defendant 2 has no responsibility in connection with defendant 1 and its actions, defendant 2 will provide the plaintiff with confirmation of the closure of the account with defendant 1 and the reset of the balance of the debt."
The Applicant's declaration in the framework of that settlement agreement referred to the substantive liability of respondent 2 in that proceeding, and did not constitute a waiver of the claim that she was a representative for the purpose of invention. The box "no liability" refers to material liability, i.e., liability in contracts or torts, for breaches or torts committed by the foreign company towards its customers, these do not establish liability of respondent 2 towards those customers.
The Applicant's signature on the settlement agreement as drafted in the previous proceeding, does not establish an estoppel or prevent her from raising her claim in this proceeding, in relation to the fact that Respondent 2 is a representative of Respondent 1 for the purpose of producing court documents.
- From here, I will proceed to discuss the question on which the trial court was required to decide, on its merits, after hearing evidence on the matter - whether it is possible to recognize respondent 2 as a representative for the purpose of producing the statement of claim to respondent 1, in accordance with Regulation 163(c) of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018 (hereinafter: the "Regulations").
- Before I elaborate on my conclusion, I will emphasize that the determinations of the trial court regarding the relationship between the respondents do not constitute factual determinations based on an assessment of the reliability of witnesses that it heard, of the kind that the appellate court would not be inclined to intervene in. The court's conclusions are based mainly on the testimony of the CEO of respondent No. 2, on which the trial court applied the rules set forth in the Supreme Court's ruling. However, in my opinion, the trial court erred in applying the normative framework to the facts that were brought before it.
- The submission of court documents to a foreign corporation in Israel through a local representative is regulated by Regulation 163(c) of the Regulations, which states as follows:
"If the recipient resides outside the borders of the State and has a representative on his behalf in the State who represents him permanently in connection with his affairs in Israel, it is possible to inform the representative if the claim relates to that matter; Regulation 169 will apply with the necessary changes to this sub-regulation as well."