What is the ratio in Ivey v Genting Casinos?

The ratio is that dishonesty is to be determined objectively by the standards of ordinary honest people, not by reference to the defendant's own moral standards or beliefs about honesty.

What did the court decide in Ivey v Genting Casinos?

The Supreme Court established a purely objective test for dishonesty, overruling the subjective element of the Ghosh test that allowed defendants to rely on their own moral standards.

Why is Ivey v Genting Casinos important for criminal law?

It fundamentally reformed the dishonesty test across criminal and civil law, making it easier to establish dishonesty by removing defendants' ability to claim different personal moral standards.

What is the ratio in Ivey v Genting Casinos?

The ratio is that dishonesty is to be determined objectively by the standards of ordinary honest people, not by reference to the defendant's own moral standards or beliefs about honesty.

What did the court decide in Ivey v Genting Casinos?

The Supreme Court established a purely objective test for dishonesty, overruling the subjective element of the Ghosh test that allowed defendants to rely on their own moral standards.

Why is Ivey v Genting Casinos important for criminal law?

It fundamentally reformed the dishonesty test across criminal and civil law, making it easier to establish dishonesty by removing defendants' ability to claim different personal moral standards.

Criminal1 min read

Ivey v Genting Casinos

[2017] UKSC 67Supreme Court2017

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Criminal cases →

“Supreme Court revolutionises dishonesty test, abolishing Ghosh's subjective element”

Facts

Phil Ivey, a professional gambler, used edge-sorting techniques at baccarat in Genting Casino, winning £7.7 million. The casino refused to pay, alleging cheating. Ivey sued for his winnings, while the casino counterclaimed.

Issues

Whether edge-sorting constituted cheating and dishonesty; what test should apply for determining dishonesty in criminal law

Held

Ivey's conduct was dishonest and constituted cheating. The Supreme Court established a new objective test for dishonesty, abolishing the subjective second limb of the Ghosh test.

Significance

This case fundamentally reformed the test for dishonesty across criminal law, replacing the long-established Ghosh test with a purely objective standard.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of Ivey v Genting Casinos. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67, [2018] AC 391

Criminal LawGaming LawCivil Law

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDLSQE1

More Criminal cases

R v Reece Martin Kelly

[2026] EWCA Crim 268

R v Richard Alexander Welsh

[2026] EWCA Crim 466

R v Robert Michael Thomas

[2026] EWCA Crim 305

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.