Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017]
![Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017]](https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1517232115160-ff93364542dd?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=M3wxMTc3M3wwfDF8c2VhcmNofDF8fGNhc2lub3xlbnwwfHx8fDE3MjI1Mzk0MjV8MA&ixlib=rb-4.0.3&q=80&w=1200)
1. Facts:
• D, a gambler, used a technique called 'edge sorting' to win millions at a casino. The casino refused to pay, claiming the method was cheating.
2. Outcome:
• Decision: D was found to have cheated. The court removed the second subjective limb of the Ghosh test for dishonesty.
3. Impact and Analysis:
• Legal Principle: This case established that the test for dishonesty should be based solely on an objective standard: whether a reasonable person would consider the action dishonest.
• Implications: The new test simplifies the assessment of dishonesty, focusing on objective perception. Criticisms include concerns about situations where individuals genuinely believe their actions are not dishonest, like tourists unaware of fare requirements. The removal of the subjective limb can lead to circular reasoning and potentially unfair outcomes, but it aims to create a clearer standard for evaluating dishonesty.