Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust International Ltd
[2005] UKPC 37
판결 이유
For dishonest assistance, the defendant must have knowledge of the facts making the transaction dishonest. It is not necessary that the defendant appreciated that what they were doing was dishonest by ordinary standards — it is sufficient that they were aware of the relevant facts.
사실관계
Barlow Clowes was a fraudulent investment scheme. The liquidators sued Eurotrust's directors for dishonest assistance, alleging they knowingly helped transfer misappropriated funds. The Isle of Man court found the directors 'suspected' but were not 'certain' funds were misapplied.
판결 요약
Lord Hoffmann clarified that dishonesty for accessory liability is primarily a question of knowledge. A defendant who suspects or consciously turns a blind eye to the relevant facts may be found dishonest. There is no separate requirement that the defendant must have appreciated their conduct was dishonest.
주요 인용문
"Although a dishonest state of mind is a subjective mental state, the standard by which the law determines whether it is dishonest is objective. If by ordinary standards a defendant's mental state would be characterised as dishonest, it is irrelevant that the defendant judges by different standards."
— Lord Hoffmann
후속 처리
Clarified the Royal Brunei test and is regularly cited alongside it in dishonest assistance claims.