In the matter of breach of statutory duty, it was found that the other defendants (with the exception of Shteif) were not partners in the tortious incident of taking Naveh's mobile phones, hacking them, and copying the information. As determined, Shteif did not provide them with details regarding the manner in which the information was obtained. On the contrary, Shteif provided a "cover version" according to which the information was given to her by Chani, and the other defendants were not aware of the tortious activity. If so, it is not a matter of combined forces that all the defendants used in order to infringe a prohibited tortious violation of Naveh's privacy (Civil Appeal 878/06 Troyheft v. Attia, paragraphs 80-82 (Nevo 4.1.2009)). In these circumstances, it is not possible to impose liability on the other defendants by virtue of the claim of "jointly wrongdoers" under Article 11 to the Torts Ordinance.
The existence of vicarious responsibility and ratification by Army Radio for Shteif's actions
- According to Naveh, defendants 2-5 explicitly or implicitly confirmed Shteif's criminal acts, while turning a blind eye and knowing that they constituted a tort. Thus, their responsibility was formed by virtue of Article 12 to the Torts Ordinance. In addition, he petitioned for the imposition of vicarious liability on Army Radio according to Article 13 to the Ordinance, since the station approved Shteif's actions and they were carried out for the dominant purpose of obtaining journalistic scoops as part of its work. According to him, the fact that Shteif committed criminal acts and took improper means does not detract from the employer's liability under the law and case law.
Shteif reinforced Naveh's claims, in the sense that to the extent that any liability is determined, the full vicarious responsibility rests with Army Radio, since it updated its superiors in real time and acted with the full accompaniment, approval and ratification of the station's professional and legal bodies.