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

Goods and services disputes Online ticket scams are on the rise – here are your legal rights

Do buyers have any legal recourse when it comes to purchasing counterfeit tickets? What are the risks when buying tickets from resellers, and what is the best way to protect yourself from ticket scams?

July 2021
News Women in Law – what needs to change

In the latest of a series of articles, we ask women in law what they would change about the profession, the industry, and the system.

December 2019
News Women in Law – balancing the LPC with work

Emma Peacock, Trainee Solicitor in DAS Law’s Catastrophic Injury team, discusses how she completed her LPC training while also working as a paralegal.

November 2019
Property disputes Struggling to pay your rent? Here’s what you need to know

The eviction ban in England and Wales has now been extended further; landlords are not able to legally enforce an eviction order until after these bans have ended.

July 2021
Protecting your business Fly tipping: what you need to know

Fly-tipping is the only crime where the victims (private landowners) have a legal responsibility to dispose of the waste. Mark Woodman looks at the laws around this modern day scourge.

July 2021
News Women in Law – the dearth of female partners

Despite the fact that women account for 61% of law graduates, only 28% of private practice partners are female. What can be done to improve this figure?

November 2019
Accidents at work , Protecting your business How to keep your workers safe during Farm Safety Week

Mark Woodman, Solicitor at DAS Law, looks at what farmers are legally required to do to keep both themselves and their workers safe.

July 2021
News Women in Law – the impact of flexible working

A mere 52% of solicitors at law firms work flexibly, compared to 66% of other UK professionals. Is flexible working a right and is it vital for encouraging more women into the industry?

October 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
Employment disputes , Growing your business , Protecting your business , Setting up a business Farming tenancies: what you need to know

Mark Woodman, Solicitor at DAS Law, looks at what farmers need to know regarding a Farm Business Tenancy.

June 2021
Protecting your business Farms and trespassing: know your rights

Mark Woodman, solicitor at DAS Law, looks at what farmers need to know about trespassing.

June 2021
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