In examining the Barnes v Addy case regarding the knowing assistance limb, the court in New South Wales in the case of Hasler v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd also explored the meaning of "dishonest" and "fraudulent" behavior.[1] This case was preoccupied with the unauthorised use of funds by three employees of Optus in order to make a gain by having the company pay funds into their warehouse company.[2] The New South Wales court in this case carefully scrutinised the Barnes v Addyprinciple and the concept of fraudulent design and affirmed that the test for dishonesty was not diluted. The court underscored that dishonesty entails a deviation from 'ordinary standards' of honesty, and for the conduct to be considered fraudulent, the assisting party must be aware of it, either through actual or constructive knowledge.

Significantly in the case of US Surgical Corp v Hospital Products which was heard in the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal underlined if an individual purposefully refrains from seeking information out of concern for uncovering fraud or breaches of duty, or a reasonable person would have recognised the wrongful conduct, it could be considered as having the same weight as possessing 'actual knowledge' of the breach of duty.[3]

Please see the above and show how this can flow better and what can be included.

Knowing assistance: the meaning of 'dishonest and fraudulent design'[1]

[2] Hasler v Singtel Optus

[3] Where do we Stand