Janesh v CHEFPIERRE: Proprietary Injunction for Bored Ape NFT Dispute

In Janesh s/o Rajkumar v Unknown Person (“CHEFPIERRE”), the High Court of Singapore addressed an application for a proprietary injunction concerning a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) known as Bored Ape Yacht Club (“BAYC”) ID #2162. The claimant, Janesh s/o Rajkumar, sought to restrain the defendant, CHEFPIERRE, from dealing with the NFT after a loan dispute. The court, presided over by Justice Lee Seiu Kin, granted the application, asserting jurisdiction based on the claimant's location in Singapore and the lack of an alternative forum. The court found that NFTs could be subject to proprietary rights and that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction to prevent the disposal of the unique digital asset.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court grants proprietary injunction for a Bored Ape NFT dispute. The case involves novel issues of digital asset ownership and jurisdiction.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Janesh s/o RajkumarClaimantIndividualApplication AllowedWon
Unknown Person (“CHEFPIERRE”)DefendantIndividualInjunction Granted Against DefendantLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lee Seiu KinJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Shaun LeongWithers KhattarWong LLP
Rachel KohWithers KhattarWong LLP
Theodore AngWithers KhattarWong LLP

4. Facts

  1. Claimant owned a Bored Ape NFT, which he considered precious and irreplaceable.
  2. Claimant regularly used the Bored Ape NFT as collateral for cryptocurrency loans on NFTfi.
  3. Claimant had an agreement with the defendant, “chefpierre.eth”, for a cryptocurrency loan.
  4. Defendant exercised the “foreclose” option on NFTfi’s Smart Program, transferring the Bored Ape NFT to his wallet.
  5. Defendant listed the Bored Ape NFT for sale on OpenSea.
  6. Claimant filed a suit against the defendant, claiming an equitable proprietary claim over the Bored Ape NFT.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Janesh s/o Rajkumar v Unknown Person (“CHEFPIERRE”), Originating Claim No 41 of 2022 (Summons No 1800 of 2022), [2022] SGHC 264

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Claimant acquired the Bored Ape NFT
Claimant entered into a loan agreement with “chefpierre.eth” for 45 ETH
“chefpierre.eth” offered the claimant another loan
Parties entered into another loan agreement for 150,000 DAI
Claimant requested a short extension of time to repay the 19th March Loan
Claimant informed “chefpierre.eth” about reaching out to another user for a loan
“chefpierre.eth” exercised the “foreclose” option of the NFTfi’s Smart Program
Court heard counsel for the claimant and allowed the application
Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Proprietary Interest in NFTs
    • Outcome: The court held that NFTs could be considered property and are capable of giving rise to proprietary rights.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether NFTs are capable of giving rise to proprietary rights
      • Application of Ainsworth criteria to NFTs
    • Related Cases:
      • [2022] SGHC 46
      • [2020] 2 NZLR 809
      • [1965] AC 1175
  2. Jurisdiction over Unknown Defendant
    • Outcome: The court held that it had jurisdiction over the unknown defendant, as the description was sufficiently certain.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Sufficiency of description of unknown defendant
      • Compliance with Rules of Court regarding naming of defendant
    • Related Cases:
      • [2003] 1 WLR 1633
  3. Substituted Service Out of Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court held that it had the power to allow substituted service out of jurisdiction, as the Rules of Court did not prescribe a closed list of methods for service.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of Rules of Court regarding service out of Singapore
      • Discretion of court to allow substituted service
    • Related Cases:
      • [1915] 1 KB 857

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Proprietary Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Tort of Conversion
  • Unjust Enrichment

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Injunctions
  • Intellectual Property
  • Technology Law
  • Cryptocurrency Law

11. Industries

  • Technology
  • Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
CLM v CLNHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 46SingaporeCited for the question of whether stolen cryptocurrency assets could be the subject of a proprietary injunction.
Ruscoe v Cryptopia Ltd (in liq)High CourtYes[2020] 2 NZLR 809New ZealandCited for analysis on whether cryptocurrency assets are capable of giving rise to proprietary rights.
Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 LtdCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 20SingaporeCited regarding the extension of common law to cover disputes involving new technologies.
Tulip Trading v Bitcoin Association for BSV & OrsHigh Court of JusticeYes[2022] EWHC 667England and WalesCited regarding jurisdiction in cases involving decentralized networks and digital assets.
VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp & OrsCourt of AppealYes[2012] EWCA Civ 808England and WalesCited for the requirements to obtain leave for service out of jurisdiction.
Bloomsbury Publishing Group Ltd v News Group Newspapers LtdCourt of AppealYes[2003] 1 WLR 1633England and WalesCited for the proposition that an injunction could be granted against unknown persons provided the description of these unknown persons was sufficiently certain to identify the persons falling within and outside of that description.
Amir Soleymani v Nifty Gateway LLCHigh Court of JusticeYes[2022] EWHC 773England and WalesCited to support the view that NFTs are data encoded in a certain manner and securely stored on the blockchain ledger.
Elena Vorotyntseva v Money-4 Limited t/a Nebeus.com and orsHigh Court of JusticeYes[2018] EWHC 2596 (Ch)England and WalesCited as an example of growing judicial support for deploying property concepts to protect digital assets.
AA v Persons Unknown who demanded bitcoin on 10th and 11th October 2019 and orsHigh Court of JusticeYes[2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm)England and WalesCited for the finding that crypto assets such as Bitcoin were property, given that they met the four criteria set out in National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth.
National Provincial Bank Ltd v AinsworthHouse of LordsYes[1965] AC 1175England and WalesCited for the four criteria to determine if crypto assets are property.
Boardman v PhippsHouse of LordsYes[1966] 3 WLR 1009England and WalesCited to contrast the nature of information in the context of NFTs with general knowledge.
Colonial Bank v WhinneyCourt of AppealYes[1885] 30 Ch.D 261England and WalesCited to discuss the traditional view of property under English law.
Allgemeine Versicherungs-Gesellschaft Helvetia v Administrator of German PropertyKing's Bench DivisionYes[1931] 1 KB 672England and WalesCited regarding statutory provisions defining property in terms that assumed that intangible property was not limited to things in action.
Your Response Ltd v Datateam Business Media LtdCourt of AppealYes[2015] QB 41England and WalesCited regarding statutory provisions defining property in terms that assumed that intangible property was not limited to things in action.
B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte LtdSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2019] 4 SLR 17SingaporeCited for the proposition that cryptocurrency is property in a generic sense for the purposes of being held on trust.
Tullett Prebon (Singapore) Ltd and anor v Chua Leong Chuan Simon and others and another suitHigh CourtYes[2005] SGHC 150SingaporeCited as an example of granting an injunction to enforce a straightforward term of a contract.
Bouvier, Yves Charles Edgar and another v Accent Delight International Ltd and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2015] 5 SLR 558SingaporeCited for the requirements to obtain an interim proprietary injunction.
Lim Lye Hiang v Official AssigneeHigh CourtYes[2012] 1 SLR 228SingaporeCited regarding the meaning of terms such as choses in action and intangible property.
Kwok Chi Leung Karl v Commissioner of Estate DutyPrivy CouncilYes[1988] 1 WLR 1035United KingdomCited regarding the meaning of terms such as choses in action and intangible property.
Petroval SA v Stainby Overseas Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 856SingaporeCited regarding the power of the court to allow substituted service out of jurisdiction.
Consistel Pte Ltd and another v Farooq Nasir and anotherHigh CourtYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 665SingaporeCited regarding the power of the court to allow substituted service out of jurisdiction.
Storey, David Ian Andrew v Planet Arkadia Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2016] SGHCR 7SingaporeCited regarding the power of the court to allow substituted service out of jurisdiction.
Porter v FreudenbergCourt of AppealYes[1915] 1 KB 857England and WalesCited regarding the power of the court to allow substituted service out of jurisdiction.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Non-Fungible Token
  • NFT
  • Bored Ape Yacht Club
  • BAYC
  • Ethereum
  • Blockchain
  • Proprietary Injunction
  • Cryptocurrency
  • NFTfi
  • Smart Contract
  • Metadata
  • Hash
  • OpenSea

15.2 Keywords

  • NFT
  • Bored Ape
  • Injunction
  • Cryptocurrency
  • Singapore
  • Digital Assets
  • Blockchain

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Proprietary Injunction80
Injunctions75
Substituted service out of jurisdiction70
Civil Practice65
Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)60
Cryptocurrency55
Property Law50
Contracts30
Torts25
Internet Law20

16. Subjects

  • Digital Assets
  • Injunctions
  • Civil Procedure
  • Cryptocurrency
  • NFTs