Case FileIndependent investigation

Defamation / receivership / fundamental rights

Chen Fisher Gabbay Receiver - Freedom of Expression Versus the Defendant's Right to a Good Name and a Fair Legal Process

Chen Fisher Gabbay receiver: freedom of expression versus the right to a good name, Chen Fisher Gabbay

Freedom of expression is a condition for criticising collection proceedings and receivers. But even in a bitter dispute, an accusation of theft, fraud or criminality is no longer a technical argument. It can reach the core of a person's good name, his profession and his ability to receive a substantive and fair legal process.

A person's good name is sometimes one of the assets most precious to him. It is built over years, yet a single sentence spoken in front of others can recolour his past, his profession and his character. Freedom of expression, on the other hand, exists to allow criticism, the presentation of claims and an effective defence, even when what is said is unpleasant. The collision between the two rights is not resolved by a slogan under which one of them always prevails.

The case discussed here places that tension inside a vehicle receivership. The hearing protocol records claims that the defendant, the owner of the vehicle, breached an order, committed an offence and used “dirty tricks” he had learned in the past as a private investigator. In a separate transcript, epithets and repeated accusations of theft, fraud and criminality against the defendant appear in the words of attorney Dotan Tzur.

A person's good name, the reputation he has built for himself over his life, is an asset of his property. The right to a good name can perhaps also be derived from the right to protection of property. Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty extends (in section 7) constitutional protection to the right to privacy as well, and in certain cases harm to a good name will also be harm to the victim's privacy and to the intimacy of his life.

Source: Uri Shenhar, Dinei Lashon Hara (Defamation Law), 2nd ed. (2024), section 3.2.1, pp. 51-52. Translated from the Hebrew.

When a criminal accusation is criticism, and when it is harm to a good name

The Prohibition of Defamation Law addresses a publication that may humiliate a person, degrade him because of acts attributed to him, or harm him in his position, occupation or profession. It also requires “publication”, meaning that the words reached at least one person other than the victim, subject to the details of the Law.

Labels such as “thief”, “fraudster”, “crook” and “criminal” may sound like insults, but they may also be understood as a factual claim that a person committed an offence. The distinction is not decided by the word alone. One must examine the context, the audience, the tone, the repetition of the claim and whether any factual basis was presented. A person who claims that fraud was committed is not merely expressing dissatisfaction. He is attributing a criminal or improper course of conduct, and special care is therefore required.

A private investigator is not a synonym for a criminal

Private investigation is a regulated profession, and its licensing is supervised by the Ministry of Justice. Under the Private Investigators and Security Services Law, 5732-1972, the licence is granted by a licensing committee appointed by the Minister of Justice, only to someone who has passed examinations in Israeli law and professional ethics, and only if the committee sees no obstacle on grounds of public safety or on grounds relating to the applicant's past, character or conduct.

Working as a private investigator is therefore no evidence of “dirty tricks”, of disconnecting a tracking device or of any other offence. If a specific act is alleged, the evidence for that act should be presented. Linking a person's profession to “tricks” or criminality creates the impression that the profession itself is a source of suspicion. That is a generalisation which harms not only the specific person but also the way readers perceive a lawful, supervised profession.

Freedom of expression versus the right to a good name: no automatic winner

The book Dinei Lashon Hara presents both rights as constitutional rights. Israeli case law includes approaches that gave special weight to freedom of expression, mainly on public matters and in publications about public figures. Alongside them are approaches that stress a horizontal, context-based balance, without declaring in advance that freedom of expression always prevails. There are also views under which, in case of doubt, it is the good name that deserves protection. The discussion in the book shows that the balance is not a single slogan but a series of questions.

In the case of vehicle receivers and cars sold by a receiver, there is a genuine public interest in criticism of the exercise of legal power, the service of warnings, the seizure of vehicles and the conduct of office holders. Freedom of expression protects the very possibility of publishing such criticism. But public interest does not exempt anyone from accuracy. The more serious the offence a publication attributes, the more important the source, the context and wording that does not turn a claim into an established fact.

A responsible balance examines at least the following questions:

  1. Is this a provable fact, an expression of opinion, an insult, or a combination of them?
  2. Is there direct evidence for the claim, or only one party's conclusion?
  3. Were the words spoken for a substantive purpose in the proceeding, or in order to humiliate in front of others?
  4. What was the extent of the publication, and who heard it?
  5. Was the person harmed given a real opportunity to respond?
  6. Could the same purpose have been achieved with more precise and less offensive wording?
  7. Does absolute immunity or another defence under the Law apply?

Inside the hearing room and outside it

Section 13(5) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law grants broad immunity to a publication by a litigant or his counsel made in the course of a hearing. Case law has held that this immunity is absolute for the purposes of a claim under the Prohibition of Defamation Law.

There is therefore a fundamental difference between the sentences recorded in the protocol and the sentences in the transcript made after the hearing. Even if a statement in the hearing room is protected from a defamation claim, that does not mean the court adopted it, that it was proven, or that it was necessarily proper in procedural or professional terms. A conversation in the corridor or after the hearing requires a separate factual and legal examination: exactly where the words were spoken, to whom, how far from the hearing, and in what context. This article does not decide whether the immunity applies to the alleged incident.

A proper and fair legal process demands accuracy even in a heated confrontation

A fair process does not guarantee a party that its position will be accepted. It guarantees that the dispute will be examined through documents, arguments and legal remedies, not by turning an epithet into a substitute for evidence. A vehicle owner who breaches an order may face sanctions. A receiver may request directions and act to seize the asset. A court may reject an application and criticise a version of events. All of these differ from a finding that a person is a thief or a fraudster.

Public criticism of a law office and of a receiver must meet the same test. A statement must not be attributed to a person merely because he is a partner in the office, and organisational affiliation must not be turned into personal responsibility.

Victor Fisher, Ofer Chen, Elad Gabbay and Dotan Tzur: what the documents show

The Chen Fisher Gabbay law office has three partners: Victor Fisher, attorney, Ofer Chen, attorney, and Elad Gabbay, attorney. Anyone searching for “Victor Fisher attorney” should know that in the appointment order examined, Victor Fisher, attorney, is the receiver appointed in the vehicle case. Anyone searching for “Dotan Tzur attorney” will find that in the protocol of 13 January 2026, Dotan Tzur, attorney, appears as counsel for the receiver, from the office of Victor Fisher, attorney, and that the statements discussed above were recorded in the protocol as his words or attributed to him in the transcript.

Ofer Chen, attorney, appears in some of the handling and service documents examined, but the statements in this article are not attributed to him. In the material examined for this article, no document was found attributing the statements to Elad Gabbay, attorney. Searches such as “Ofer Chen attorney” or “Elad Gabbay attorney” therefore do not justify attributing to them words spoken, according to the documents, by another person.

Frequently asked questions about receivers and cars sold by a receiver

What is a vehicle receiver?

A receiver is an office holder appointed by order who acts to realise an asset within his powers and under the supervision of the appointing forum. Where a vehicle is concerned, one should check the appointment order, the identity of the receiver, the status of the proceeding, the approval of the sale and later decisions.

What matters when searching for “vehicle receivers” or “car sold by a receiver”?

Check who was appointed, whether the sale was approved, whether an application for a stay is pending, the physical and legal condition of the vehicle, and what representations were made to the buyer. A low price is no substitute for checking documents.

Is it permitted to call a person a “criminal” during a hearing?

Words spoken in the course of a hearing may be covered by section 13(5), even if they are harsh. Immunity from a defamation claim does not turn the statement into a judicial finding, and does not decide whether it was proper in ethical or procedural terms.

Does freedom of expression always prevail over a good name?

No. Both rights enjoy constitutional protection. Their relative weight depends on the type of expression, the public interest, the severity of the harm, the factual basis, the identity of those involved and the defences set out in the Law.

Conclusion

The discussion around the Chen Fisher Gabbay receiver does not require a choice between silence and defamation. It is possible to criticise a receivership, point to judicial decisions, publish the vehicle owner's claims and examine the conduct of the lawyers, without erasing the difference between a claim, evidence and a conviction.

Freedom of expression protects the possibility of speaking. The right to a good name imposes responsibility for the way one speaks. A proper and fair legal process needs both.

Sources and clarifications

Cars sold by a receiver: buyer beware