The key point of this is that there is no need for a direct causal link between the defendant’s actions and the claimant’s loss for a dishonest assistance claim to succeed. The gist of Mance LJ’s sentiments were reaffirmed and clarified by the subsequent Court of Appeal case of Casio Computer Ltd v Sayo [2001] EWCA Civ 661: Grupo Torras… establishes that in a claim for dishonest assistance it is not necessary to show a precise causal link between the assistance and the loss…[but that] loss caused by the breach of fiduciary duty is recoverable from the accessory. Per Tuckey LJ.