“Dishonest assistance liability requires dishonesty, not knowledge of fiduciary duties”
Royal Brunei Airlines appointed a travel agent as its general sales agent in Brunei. The agent's managing director, Tan, caused the agent to use money received from ticket sales for its own purposes instead of holding it on trust for the airline. The agent became insolvent and the airline sued Tan personally for dishonestly assisting in the breach of fiduciary duty.
Whether a person can be liable for dishonestly assisting in a breach of fiduciary duty without knowing that the primary party owed fiduciary duties, and what mental element is required for such liability.
Tan was liable for dishonestly assisting in a breach of fiduciary duty. Liability does not require knowledge that fiduciary duties exist, only that the conduct is dishonest by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people.
This case fundamentally reformed the law of accessory liability for breach of fiduciary duty by replacing knowledge-based tests with a dishonesty standard. It remains the leading authority on dishonest assistance and has been applied across Commonwealth jurisdictions.
You're reading the free summary of Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan [1995] 2 AC 378 (PC)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.