טענה בעניין "עדות כבושה" או "טענה כבושה" עולה בדרך כלל במצב בו בעל דין מעלה לראשונה טענה כלשהי שהיה באפשרותו להעלותה בעבר.
For example: A plaintiff sends to the defendant Warning letter before taking legal actionThe defendant ignores the letter and does not respond to it. The plaintiff submits ClaimThe defendant files a defense, and only within that framework does he raise any claim that may be of importance.
In these cases, the question may arise Why did the defendant not respond? on the warning letter and raised the claim earlier. After all, if this was a good claim and the defendant had raised it as part of the response letter, the lawsuit might not have been filed in the first place.
In precisely these cases, it can be argued that this is a suppressed testimony or a suppressed claim.
The Supreme Court's position on suppressed testimony
סוגיית עדות כבושה הגיעה לבית המשפט העליון (ע"פ 1645/08 פלוני נ' מדינת ישראל, verdict from 2009) which stated on this issue as follows:
The rule applicable to the matter of suppressed testimony is that its evidentiary value and weight are diminished due to the suspicion that naturally arises as to its truthfulness.This is so long as the witness does not have a convincing and reassuring explanation for the reasons why he withheld his testimony…
כלומר, עדות ש"נכבשה" Raises suspicion that it is not true, and therefore the court may attribute little weight to it. The reason for this is simple – if it were a valid claim, the litigant would have raised it at the first opportunity.
Implementation of the Supreme Court ruling on suppressed testimony by the district courts
A review of the rulings of the district courts shows that they clearly implement the Supreme Court ruling on the matter of suppressed testimony.
כך לדוגמה נפסק בת"א 3398-11-10 אגי פרידמן נ' צבי שיסל ואח' (החלטה מיום 20.4.2012):
Third, the aforementioned claim was raised by the defendants only shortly after the filing of the lawsuit and not before. It is reasonable to assume that if, as the defendants claim, there had been an agreement that the plaintiff would work voluntarily, they would have raised the claim shortly after receiving a written request from the plaintiff's attorney, but they did not do so. Moreover, three warning letters were sent to the defendants in which the claim was raised, and Petka had no explanation as to why he did not bother to respond that no agreement had been reached on the salary due to the plaintiff, after he confirmed that he had received at least one of the warning letters (p. 124, lines 28-31, p. 135, line 1). כבישת הנתבעים את טענתם לפיה לא סוכם עם התובעת על שכר, הימנעות ממענה למכתב ב"כ התובעת בעניין, והעלאת הטענה לראשונה בכתב ההגנה, מקשה על קבלת גרסתם זו.
גם במסגרת תביעות ייצוגיות בתי המשפט מייחסים חשיבות לסוגיית העדות הכבושה. כך לדוגמה בת"צ 47104-12-17 תומר ברם נ' Apple Inc (החלטה מיום 7.6.2021):
This obscure claim, which was not mentioned in the pleadings earlier, is of no use to the respondents.
חשוב להבין שטענת עדות כבושה בהליך אזרחי איננה טענת "נוק אאוט" שמובילה לניצחון מיידי במסגרת ההליך, אלא מדובר בLegal claim A favor that is added to the other claims, and it may certainly tip the scales in favor of the party who asserted it.
