← All Authorities
United Kingdom Leading Case deceit

Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd

[2017] UKSC 67
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtUK Supreme Court
Year2017
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Dishonesty is assessed objectively by standards of ordinary decent people; no separate subjective awareness of dishonesty required, overruling the Ghosh two-stage test.

Key Principle

The Supreme Court restated the test for dishonesty (applicable in both civil and criminal contexts): the question is whether the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people, without a separate requirement that D knew it was dishonest by those standards (overruling Ghosh).

Area of Law

company

Related Cases

Shafron v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2012) 247 CLR 465

A company secretary is an 'officer' under the Corporations Act and owes a duty of care and diligence under s 180 in performing their functions.

Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation [2012] WASCA 157

Directors of an insolvent company owe duties to creditors, and bank claims may be subordinated where unconscionable conduct is established in dealings with the insolvent company.

Barclay v Penberthy (2012) 246 CLR 258

The standard of care under s 180 of the Corporations Act is that of a reasonable person in the director's position, having regard to the corporation's circumstances and the director's office.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Lt...