Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.


"Time and again, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has found the ‘objective’ element of the Ghosh/Twinsectra test proved, but acquitted the solicitor of dishonesty because it was not satisfied that the ‘subjective’ element had been proved to the requisite standard."

So are all those cases now wrongly decided? The average person thinks the behaviour was dishonest, so Ivey applies, and the solicitor was therefore dishonest? The solicitor's state of mind as to what he did is now irrelevant, surely? Only the facts that he perceived?

The point of Ivey was that he thought what he was doing was not dishonest. He thought he had a legit edge over the house through legit means. The SC said that the average person would consider it a dishonest edge, ergo it was dishonest. The subjective thing was the facts; Ivey knew what those were, he just drew the wrong conclusion.

Your details