14.01.2013 Views

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

carrying it on (whether because <strong>of</strong> the way it is carried on or for any other reason)<br />

will be that creditors will be defrauded.” 110 It is submitted that the phrase "natural<br />

or foreseen consequences because <strong>of</strong> the way it is carried on or for any other<br />

reason" suggests an objective element.<br />

In R v Grantham 111 the court held that intent to defraud can be assumed if at the<br />

time when the debts were contracted the person realised that there was no reason<br />

for thinking that funds would be available to pay the debt when it became due or<br />

shortly thereafter. In R v Sinclair 112 the judge held that “it is fraud if it is proved<br />

that there was the taking <strong>of</strong> a risk which there was no right to take which would<br />

cause detriment or prejudice to another…” From the decision, it shows that fraud<br />

can be present if the director acting recklessly and as result <strong>of</strong> that, a third party is<br />

in a disadvantaged position.<br />

In Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley and others 113 , Lord Hutton stated that there are three<br />

possible standards which can be applicable in order to determine whether a<br />

person has been acting dishonestly. <strong>The</strong> first is purely subjective where a person<br />

is judged as dishonest if he transgresses his own boundary. <strong>The</strong> second, is purely<br />

objective and the person is adjudged to be dishonest if his conduct falls below<br />

what a reasonable and honest person would regard as honest, although the person<br />

himself may not be aware as such. <strong>The</strong> third, concerns a combination <strong>of</strong> both<br />

subjective and objective elements whereby the test is satisfied if the person in<br />

question is aware that he has acted dishonestly based on the standard <strong>of</strong> a<br />

reasonable and honest person. <strong>The</strong> judge concluded by stating that “dishonesty<br />

requires knowledge by the defendant that what he was doing would be regarded<br />

as dishonesty by honest people, although he should not escape a finding <strong>of</strong><br />

dishonesty because he sets his own standard <strong>of</strong> dishonesty and does not regard as<br />

110 [1978] Ch 262 at 267.<br />

111 [1984] 1 QB 675 at 682.<br />

112 [1968] 1 WLR 1246 at 1249.<br />

113 [2002] 2 AC 164 at 172.<br />

251

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!