He appealed on the basis that the trial judge had told the jury to use their common sense to determine whether the accused's conduct had been dishonest or not.

Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords was a Supreme Court case decided in late 2017 which expressed the view in obiter dictum that Ghosh did not correctly represent the law, that the objective test was preferred and that the test of dishonesty is as set out by Lord Nicholls in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan [1995] UKPC 4 and by Lord Hoffmann in Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust International Ltd [2005] UKPC 37.

When dishonesty was in question, the fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain the actual state of the individual's knowledge or belief as to the facts.

The question whether the conduct was honest or dishonest was then to be determined by applying the objective standards of ordinary decent people.

The Supreme Court noted particularly that though their case concerned a cheating gambler (as they found Ivey to be) suing the casino in a civil case, there was no good reason for distinguishing civil from criminal dishonesty,[3] and that accordingly the criminal law was incorrectly understood as set out in Ghosh.