Case FileIndependent investigation

Defamation / publication / receiver

Could the Words of Dotan Tzur, Attorney of the Chen Fisher Gabbay Law Office, Amount to Defamatory Publication ?

Defamation: Publication

Dotan Tzur, attorney, defamatory publication, Chen Fisher Gabbay Law Office

Are statements such as “thief, fraudster and criminal”, heard after an enforcement hearing in the presence of others, a “publication” under defamation law? This is how the question is examined under the chapter “Publication” in Uri Shenhar’s book, Dinei Lashon Hara (Defamation Law), and the case law to which the chapter refers.

Chen Fisher Gabbay receiver: who the parties are

On 13 January 2026 a hearing was held at the Haifa enforcement office in case 515509-06-24, a pledge enforcement case concerning a vehicle under receivership. The receiver’s counsel was Dotan Tzur, attorney, of the Chen Fisher Gabbay law office in Netanya. Victor Fisher, attorney, Ofer Chen, attorney, and Elad Gabbay, attorney, are partners in the firm. The defendant is the debtor who asked for the hearing. According to the protocol, the statements at the hearing are attributed to Dotan Tzur, attorney, alone, and not to any of the three partners.

According to the protocol, it was claimed at the hearing that the defendant “worked as a private investigator” and “learned tricks”, and that his affidavit is “a lie and a falsehood”.

What was heard after the hearing

According to a transcript of a recording of the same day, at 13:15, after the hearing, Dotan Tzur, attorney, says to the defendant, repeatedly, “thief, fraudster and criminal” and “scum of the human race”, and later also “cheat” and “felon”. The transcript also contains the statement “let everyone know”. It also shows a person addressed as “Yaniv”, a participant marked “a Chen Fisher employee”, and “the audience”, who asks “What happened? Who is this? Is this your lawyer?”. The defendant asks in the transcript “Why are you shouting?”. The transcript is a document of the defendant, and its authenticity has not been examined in any proceeding.

Step one: was there a “publication”

According to the book, publication is not limited to writing. Section 2(a) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law provides that publication is oral, written or in print, and includes a drawing, a figure, a movement and a sound (Shenhar, p. 138). Words spoken aloud can therefore be a publication.

Step two: the words must reach another person

According to the book, a civil claim requires that the words reach at least one other person besides the injured party (section 7 of the Law, pp. 141 to 142). Words said to the injured party alone do not ground a claim. A criminal offence of defamation requires more: publication to at least two persons besides the injured party (section 6 of the Law, p. 152).

Step three: oral words, intention and actual reach

According to the book, a person who publishes defamation other than in writing bears civil liability if the publication was intended for at least one person besides the injured party and in fact reached at least one such person (section 2(b)(1), p. 152). No declaration of intention is needed. The book notes that it may be inferred from words hurled in the presence of others and in a voice that could be heard by them (p. 147).

According to the transcript, the words were spoken while others were present, “the audience” asked who the man was, the defendant asked “Why are you shouting?”, and “let everyone know” was said. These documents indicate that there is a basis for a claim of intention and reach. Whether anyone actually heard, and who, will be determined on the evidence.

How oral publication is proved

According to the book, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. For an oral publication the royal road is the testimony of someone who heard the words, and failing to call the listeners as witnesses may count against the plaintiff. Nevertheless, a court may find that an oral publication was proved on circumstantial evidence (pp. 155 to 156). The admissibility and weight of a recording and a transcript will be decided in the proceeding.

What this article does not decide

Publication is only one element of the tort. This article does not examine whether the words are “defamation” under section 1 of the Law, and does not examine defences. Section 13(5) of the Law, concerning a publication by a party or his counsel “in the course of a hearing”, is reviewed in the article “Receiver - Officer of the Court ?”. Whether words spoken after the hearing ended fall within that definition is a question for a court. No court has decided it.

Sources