Unifying and defining ‘dishonesty’ in the law of trusts

Abstract

Abstract In this article, I argue that ‘dishonesty’ should be unified and defined in the law of trusts. I argue: (1) the UK Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos was correct to reject the Ghosh test for dishonesty and to endorse the Royal Brunei test for all legal contexts; (2) the present law on trustee exemption clauses is inconsistent with Ivey, and Walker v Stones must accordingly be overruled; (3) the subjective factors relevant to dishonesty are reducible to a person’s intentions and beliefs; and (4) ‘dishonest’ assistance of a breach of trust should be defined more precisely in terms of what knowledge is required to hold a defendant liable.