It was further argued that the period of non-competition was limited to three years, and that it was not proven that this would close the door on the possibility of Kahane returning to the field of electron microscopes at the end of this period. In relation to this, the respondent argued that the appellants had not proven their far-reaching claim that in view of the characteristics of the electron microscope market, the significance of the non-competition period of only three years is Kahane's complete and permanent neutralization from the market.
- Finally, the respondent argued that there is no room to intervene in the amount of expenses that was awarded to the appellants. This is because the case at hand does not fall within the scope of the limited exception that justifies the intervention of the appellate court in the expenses awarded, and that the expenses awarded in the present case are not exceptional in relation to the scope of the case. At the same time, according to the respondent, the appellants should be awarded real expenses in this court in view of the fact that this is a clear factual appeal and lacks any basis, and that the statement of appeal in it was inappropriately worded.
Continuation of the proceeding before us and reference to the respondent's presumption
- Before proceeding to the hearing of the appeal on its merits, I found it necessary to dwell on the fact that in the statement of appeal the appellants did indeed raise certain arguments in a shameful manner and in an aggressive manner in the trial court.
Style Argument We encounter this from time to time, but it is usually reserved for litigants who represent themselves who do not suppress their anger in the heat of the moment (and this too is flawed), and not for lawyers who are in charge of representing their clients while maintaining the dignity and relevance of the legal process.
As stated above, in his reply to the appeal, the respondent argued that the appeal should be dismissed in limine in light of these arguments of the appellants.
- Indeed, it is not possible to accept such a form of argument. The statement of arguments before us was drafted in contravention of the requirement of Regulation 32 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, which states that: "A statement of arguments shall be formulated in a manner that is not disrespectful, shameful or offensive." Throwing aspersions on the panel sitting in the case due to dissatisfaction with its determinations on the merits of the matter, interferes with the existence of a just, efficient and substantive hearing and undermines the proceeding. In this regard, the words of President Barak (although they were said in a slightly different context): "It is the body of the decision that must be subject to scrutiny, and not the body of the person sitting in the law" (Civil Appeal 5803/04 Masada Engineering Company Ltd. v. Bank Leumi Le-Israel Ltd., para. 5 (October 29,2004)).
Therefore, in the course of the hearing that took place before us on February 10,2025, we addressed the respondent's argument that the appeal should be dismissed out of hand and confronted the appellants' counsel with the blatant language in which the statement of appeal was worded. As a result, counsel for the appellants announced that: "I have nothing but to apologize".