Finally, I also considered the plaintiff's assessment of his damages in the warning letter, which included a financial demand in the sum of ILS 50,000 alongside a demand for an apology. When a correction was made - even if it did not satisfy the plaintiff - it appears that even according to the plaintiff's approach, he should have filed a claim for about ILS 50,000 and not in the sum of ILS 160,000 as he had submitted.
In this context, I will add that the ruling referred to by the plaintiff's counsel (C.A. 56860-12-23 Peleg v. Dahan (July 14,2025)) is not a proper criterion for determining the amount of compensation in this case; the publication is different in essence; the number of publications is different; and in the additional matter, no apology was presented.
- From all of the above, against the background of the purposes of compensation under the laws of defamation and the application of all the aforementioned considerations, the claim in the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is partially accepted. The defendant will pay the plaintiff compensation at the lower threshold in the amount of ILS 7,500. The claim against Channel 14 is dismissed.
- taking into account the discrepancy between the amount of the claim (ILS 160,000) and the compensation that was actually awarded; the efficient management of the claim (on the part of both parties), which also enabled the saving of judicial resources and the conclusion of the investigation of the claim within about a year; the fee agreement that the plaintiff submitted without receipts for actual expenses; and in view of the fact that the claim against defendant 2 was dismissed. There is no order for costs.
Granted today, Elul Hospital 5786, on August 31,2026, in the absence of the parties.