Dishonesty: Oh my, we’re finally moving away from the ‘Ghosh Test’

28th November 2017

This article first appeared in Legal Futures.

The Supreme Court ruling in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 will have a huge impact upon the test for ‘dishonesty’ in criminal and professional disciplinary proceedings.

Since 1982, dishonesty has been considered on the basis of the two stage, objective and subjective test arising out of R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA, - the “Ghosh Test”.

The Ghosh Test requires the Court to consider:

  • firstly, whether the conduct in question was dishonest by the standards of ordinary reasonable and honest people; and
  • secondly, whether the individual realised that ordinary honest people would regard their behaviour as dishonest.

The second subjective element of the Ghosh Test means that the less the individual’s own standards conform to society’s expectations, the less likely they are to be held accountable for their behaviour in criminal or professional disciplinary proceedings.

For some time the test in civil proceedings has also been the subject of debate. Lord Nicholls in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan [1995] 2 AC 164 and Lord Hoffman in Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust International Ltd [2005] UKPC 37 advocated an exclusively objective test. They both felt that, once an individual’s knowledge of the facts was ascertained, it was only necessary to consider whether the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.

This did not sit easily with a House of Lords decision (Twinsectra v Yardley [2002]) that the Ghosh Test should apply equally in civil proceedings.

In the recent Ivey case, Mr Ivey was a professional gambler who used a card technique, ‘edge-sorting’, which increases the chances of a player winning. When the casino realised the technique had been used, it refused to pay and Mr Ivey brought a £7.7 million claim for his alleged winnings.

Mr Ivey did not believe he had cheated and had merely sought a more advantageous position. Had the Ghosh Test been applied, Mr Ivey would have escaped a finding of dishonesty. However, the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court all found that when measured against the standards of ordinary decent people his behaviour constituted cheating and, consequently, the casino was not required to pay him. 

The Supreme Court went on to confirm that a solely objective test for dishonesty should be applied in all cases. In professional disciplinary proceedings, for example hearings in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, respondents will now no longer be able to rely on their own ‘lower’ standards or a belief – even if genuinely held – that they have been honest, as long as ordinary decent people would consider their behaviour dishonest. I seriously doubt anyone will see this as a change for the worse.

Chris Brewin is a Principal Associate at DAS Law.

Chris Brewin

Principal Associate, Solicitor

Learn more

Read more from the DAS Law blog

General advice New school year brings new clashes over school uniforms

Strict school uniform rules have angered parents who believe their children should be allowed some flexibility when it comes to uniforms. But where does the law stand and what can parents do if they disagree with school rules?

September 2019
News DAS Law shortlisted in 3 categories at the Legal Week Innovation Awards

DAS Law has been shortlisted in three categories at the 2019 Legal Week Innovation Awards.

May 2019
Road traffic accidents , General advice What the law has to say about e-scooters, e-skateboards and bike hire schemes

Few of us could fail to notice the rise in the number of e-scooters and hire bikes on our roads .But what do owners and riders need to know?

September 2019
News DAS Law nominated for ABS of the Year award

DAS Law has been shortlisted for ‘ABS of the Year’ at the 2019 Modern Law Awards.

December 2018
News Legal adviser shortlisted for Law Student of the Year

DAS Law legal adviser Adam Pincott has been shortlisted for The Bristol Law Society’s ‘Student of the Year’ award.

October 2018
News DAS Law welcomes new intake to Graduate Academy

DAS Law has welcomed a new intake to its innovative Graduate Academy, with seven aspiring lawyers joining our 2018 apprenticeship programme.

September 2018
General advice Why won’t my employer give me a day off to grieve for my dog?

When a student from Glasgow took a day off work to mourn the death of her 14-year-old dog, she lost her job.

August 2019
Employment disputes Can your boss force you to work the August Bank Holiday?

Can you refuse to work on a bank holiday? DAS Law’s Hannah Parsons outlines your rights.

August 2019
News DAS Law unveils new graduates

Bristol-based law firm DAS Law has unveiled the first successful graduates from its Graduate Academy.

July 2018
News DAS Law launches new Graduate Academy for law students

DAS Law has launched a new Graduate Academy that comprises a fully funded three-year apprenticeship scheme for law graduates and post graduates.

June 2018
General advice Understanding the law on facial recognition software

Where does the law stand on the use of facial recognition software? Hannah Parsons, Principal Associate Solicitor, DAS Law, tells you what you need to know.

August 2019
Employment disputes , Goods and services disputes , Professional services disputes Is the customer always right when it comes to alcohol and pregnancy?

A recent Reddit post sparked debate on personal accountability and the rights of serving staff when it comes to alcohol. Larna Mason explains what the law says.

August 2019
News DAS Law transforms online presence

Bristol-based DAS Law has launched a new corporate website to enhance its online presence.

May 2018