The District Court in Tel Aviv today (Tuesday) accepted the appeal of the Likud and attorney Yossi Cohen against the verdict given in the Herzliya Magistrate's Court, and determined that the Likud's publication regarding the expenses of the Prime Minister's residence is not defamation of Mani Naftali. As a result, Naftali was ordered to pay the party NIS 10,000 in expenses.
This is a defamation lawsuit that was received in the Herzliya Magistrate's Court, when the head of the house in the Prime Minister's residence filed against seven defendants, and six of them were ordered to pay him damages plus legal expenses and attorney's fees. This was in 2015 - a serious report by the State Comptroller on the subject The expenses of the residence, which discusses the expenses of maintaining the official residence of the Prime Minister at that time.
The Prime Minister's residence in Caesarea, photo: Herzi Shapira
Naftali claimed that the publications on the Likud's Facebook page were false and defamatory, and the Peace Court did indeed rule in his favor. The Likud party appealed in response to the District Court in Tel Aviv, and the appeals panel did overturn the ruling of the Peace in Herzliya and determined that the publication on the Facebook account was not defamatory and obliged Mani Naftali to pay Likud court costs of NIS 10,000.
The panel of judges commented in its decision that "one should not read into the outcome of the appeals what is not in it, not even an expression of a position, one way or the other, with regard to the set of issues that were discussed in the Magistrate's Court that were not required for a decision in our case."
The appeals panel also ruled that the Likud met the requirement of good faith when the publication "does not include seriously offensive content", and that the analysis of the post shows that the main part of the post was aimed at the auditor's report and the attempt to deal with what was stated in it, and that the reference to Naftali in the post is marginal, he is not its subject, also Not a secondary issue, nor was it personally directed against him. The appeals panel commented that it did not find in the post the same "blatant and aggressive language" that the Peace Court stated that it saw in it.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us
