Copied from Nevo
- The plaintiff submitted an affidavit of primary witness on his behalf, as did the defendant. While the plaintiff reiterated his claims in his affidavit, the defendant's version in his affidavit included new claims in relation to what was alleged in the statement of defense. In summary, the defendant further claimed in his affidavit, inter alia, that at the beginning of 2020, together with Polansky, he established a venture, to which Grossman was added by the two. The defendant emphasized that the three acted as partners in the venture, without having drawn up a written agreement. According to the defendant, at this stage, the three planned to make a limited financial investment, amounting to a few thousand dollars. It was also agreed that the proceeds from the sale of the products will be used for the purchase of new products, while expanding the scope of purchases from time to time. According to him, after the idea was formulated, he discussed it with the plaintiff, who asked to take part in the venture in light of his expertise in setting up websites and marketing products through them. Based on these representations, the defendant, together with Polansky, decided to use the plaintiff for the purpose of establishing a website TTM He was defined as a functionary, but not as a partner in the venture. According to him, it was generally agreed that the defendant would make an investment of a limited sum and that the plaintiff would provide knowledge and work on his part, and later on, as economic potential was identified, the defendant and Polansky would raise the necessary investment funds.
- According to the defendant In his affidavit, at the beginning of the activity, it became clear to him that customers entering the site TTM and therefore a change in the business plan is required in order to increase the investment in advertising. For this purpose, Wheeler was recruited for the venture, which invested sums exceeding $220, 000 USA"II, in addition to investments made by the defendant and Grossman. According to him, throughout the period, no profits from the sites were withdrawn. The defendant claims that the plaintiff's contribution was quickly reduced, so that in April 2020 it included only negligible maintenance activities, while the areas of advertising and marketing and the graphic design of the site He was removed from his responsibility due to a lack of professional skills. The defendant claims that the plaintiff's demand to receive 20% of the profits of the venture was raised retroactively, in preparation for the filing of the lawsuit. The defendant emphasized that he had never committed (whether directly, or through any of the companies that are the subject of the venture( to pay the plaintiff some percentage of the profits, and that the reports presented by the plaintiff from "Google Analytics" are inadmissible. About the site DB It is claimed that This website Established in May 2020, in parallel with the activities of other sites Object of the project, and without its activity generating profits. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was not active on this site.
Discussion and Decision
- As detailed below, The law of the claim for the provision of accounts must be received in part, in a manner that establishes the plaintiff a remedy of the provision of accounts in relation to the period from March 2020 until the end of 2022. The hearing will be held in three stages: Beginning, the preliminary argument regarding an improper forum will be discussed. In the second stage, the question of whether there was a special relationship between the parties, which justifies the granting of accounts, will be examined. This will include determining whether a binding agreement was made, what its content is and who its parties were (including the threshold claim regarding the absence of rivalry and the absence of causes, the clarification of which involves clarifying the claim itself), and whether it was breached. Finally, the question of the existence of a prima facie right of claim in relation to the funds that are the subject of the accounts will be examined.
The defendant's claim regarding an improper forum
- The rule is, Because "The decisive test for examining the applicability of a doctrine 'The inappropriate forum' is whether the local forum is 'The Natural Forum' Or there is a foreign natural forum with the authority to hear the claim. This test is decided in view of the totality of the circumstances of the case."Civil Appeal Authority 9810/05 Hecke N. Pimcapco Limited, paragraph 10 (30.8.2009( and the references Name (Hereinafter: Interest Hecke(). In this context, the case law established three sub-tests: which forum has the most links to the dispute; What are the reasonable expectations of the parties with respect to the place of litigation; and whether there are public considerations that support the discussion in this or that forum (Civil Appeal Authority 928/18 De Neef Construction Chemicals BVBA v. Gilar Ltd., Paragraph 17 (May 15, 2018(; Civil Appeal 2547/23 Office Textiles Ltd. v. Broklinen Inc Delaware co 5469940, paragraph 13 (December 28, 2023(; Civil Appeal Authority 78645-12-24Vital Capital Investments Limited Partnership Lustig v., paragraph 22 (April 29, 2025). The premise is that the Israeli court has jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The defendant, who claims that the forum in Israel is not the appropriate forum, bears an increased burden of persuading that the foreign court has natural and clear authority to clarify the claim (Civil Appeal Authority 3144/03 Elbit Medical Imaging Ltd. v. Harefua Servicos de Saude S/C Ltda, IsrSC 57(5( 414, 421-422 (2003(; Hecke, paragraph 10).
- An examination of the aforesaid rules regarding the circumstances of the present case leads to the conclusion that the defendant did not meet the burden placed on him to persuade him that Israel was not the proper forum to hear the claim. The defendant made do with raising general claims, which were not backed up by evidence. Thus, the defendant argues in relation to the test of the maximum connection to the dispute, that the requested remedy Binding examining the business activities of foreign corporations, and that the purpose of the venture was to sell dollars online to American customers. However, the defendant did not present any concrete or detailed evidence of where and in what manner the main business activity was actually carried out or how this activity was carried out Establishing a clear affinity for the foreign forum. In addition, the claim that business activity was concentrated by foreign corporations is not sufficient in itself. The defendant did not prove that the investigation of the claim in Israel It will be a burden significant impact on the foreign corporations or the conduct of the proceeding, and did not even present evidence indicating a substantial and clear connection of these corporations to the Forum The Stranger. The defendant did not file In this regard, Financial statements or correspondence attesting to the concentration of substantial and exclusive activity abroad, The Supports in these arguments. With respect to the test of the parties' reasonable expectations and public considerations, Even these, as will be detailed below, support the holding of the discussion in Israel specifically. More than necessary, I will clarify that the application of the maximalist affinity test also leads to the conclusion that Israel is the natural forum To clarify the procedure. First, the two parties are residents of Israel, whose center of life and business is in Israel. Second, the engagement Object The procedure was concluded in Israel (as will be detailed below), between two Israelis, against the background of previous personal acquaintance, and the management of the venture, at least in its beginning, was done from Israel. Third, the plaintiff's activity, which is an essential component in the investigation of the claim, was carried out entirely from Israel. Fourth, the main evidence, the hundreds of pages of WhatsApp correspondence, as well as the testimonies of the parties, are all in Hebrew, so there is no advantage for a foreign forum in terms of the language and accessibility of the evidence. Fifth:, even the main potential witnesses on which the defendant relies are located in Israel. Mamilla The Defendant He did not indicate any difficulty in their testimony in Israel. As for the suppliers of the venture, the parties confirmed that some of them are Israelis, including the main supplier for the purchase of the initial inventory. On the other hand, the only connection to the foreign forum on which the defendant throws the Yahav is concerned with the activities of the corporations The Americans and with the involvement of Mr. Grossman. However, this argument was also made in vain. The defendant did not present any concrete evidence of the scope of the activity that was actually carried out abroad, and did not establish His claim Because the foreign corporations have a substantial and clear affinity to a specific foreign forum. As for Mr. Grossman, the defendant not only did not establish a concrete difficulty in bringing him to testify, but even made it clear in his testimony that he saw no point in summoning him (Transcript, p. 44, paras. 10-12). The additional subtests also support this conclusion. Since we are dealing with two Israelis who contacted Israel in Hebrew and managed the beginning of the project from Israel, the reasonable expectation of the parties was that a dispute Potential among them It will be clarified in Israel, and it has not been claimed, and in any case, no basis for expecting otherwise has been proven. Even public considerations, including the interest in the effective resolution of a local dispute between the residents of Israel, and the lack of interest of a foreign forum in deciding it, support the holding of the debate in Israel.
Therefore, the claim to the forum is improper to be rejected, and the claim for providing accounts must be investigated on its merits.