Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:32:18 -0400

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: Dishonest assistance in a breach of trust

Dear Colleagues:

I have always wondered why any sort of dishonesty is necessary at all.

The requirements, it seems to me, should be mirror images of the requirements of the tort of intentionally inducing breach of contract.

It seems silly, and confusing, to speak of objective dishonesty.

Cheers,

Charles Mitchell wrote:

In Royal Brunei v Tan Lord Nicholls held for the PC that dishonesty is required for accessory liability in a breach of trust, to be measured objectively: knowing what he knew, would an honest person have done what D did? In Twinsectra v Yardley, Lord Hutton, aided and abetted by Lord Hoffmann, rewrote history and said in the HL that what Lord Nicholls REALLY meant was that liability would be incurred only by those who are self-consciously dishonest: an honest person would not have done what D did, AND D knew this when he went ahead and did it in anyway.

--
Jason Neyers
January Term Director
Assistant Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>