Nail Palace v Competition and Consumer Commission: Appeal on Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act

Nail Palace (BPP) Pte Ltd (NPBPP) and Nail Palace (SM) Pte Ltd (NPSM) appealed against a District Judge's decision finding them liable for unfair practices under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) brought claims against NPBPP and NPSM for misleading representations to consumers. Goh Yihan JC dismissed three applications: NPSM's application to amend its Notice of Appeal, NPBPP's application to amend its Notice of Appeal, and NPBPP’s application for leave to adduce further evidence. The court applied a more stringent standard, treating the amendment applications as requests for extensions of time to file an appeal, which were not justified.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

All three applications dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding unfair practices under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. The court dismissed applications to amend appeal notices and adduce evidence.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Nail Palace (BPP) Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationApplication dismissed, Application dismissedLost, LostSingh Navinder, Paul Aman Singh Sambhi
Competition and Consumer Commission of SingaporeRespondent, PlaintiffGovernment AgencyApplications grantedWonChooi Yue Wai Kenny, Joel Jaryn Yap Shen
Nail Palace (SM) Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationApplication dismissedLostSingh Navinder, Paul Aman Singh Sambhi

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Goh YihanJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Singh NavinderKSCGP Juris LLP
Paul Aman Singh SambhiKSCGP Juris LLP
Chooi Yue Wai KennyAdsan Law LLC
Joel Jaryn Yap ShenAdsan Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. NPBPP and NPSM are companies providing manicure, pedicure, and foot-related treatments under the name 'Nail Palace'.
  2. CCCS brought claims against NPBPP and NPSM for unfair practices under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act.
  3. NPBPP was accused of making misleading representations about the need for fungal treatment.
  4. NPSM was accused of omitting to inform a consumer that certain products were included in the price of a treatment package.
  5. The District Judge found for the respondent in both claims.
  6. NPBPP and NPSM appealed the District Judge's decision.
  7. NPBPP and NPSM sought to amend their Notices of Appeal to include appeals against orders not initially appealed.
  8. NPBPP sought to adduce further expert evidence regarding the visual assessment of fungal infection.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Nail Palace (BPP) Pte Ltd v Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore and another matter, , [2023] SGHC 111
  2. Registrar’s Appeal (State Courts) No 27 of 2022, , Registrar’s Appeal (State Courts) No 27 of 2022
  3. Registrar’s Appeal (State Courts) No 28 of 2022, , Registrar’s Appeal (State Courts) No 28 of 2022
  4. District Court Originating Summons No 285 of 2021, , District Court Originating Summons No 285 of 2021
  5. District Court Originating Summons No 286 of 2021, , District Court Originating Summons No 286 of 2021
  6. HC/SUM 29/2023, , HC/SUM 29/2023
  7. HC/SUM 30/2023, , HC/SUM 30/2023
  8. HC/SUM 156/2023, , HC/SUM 156/2023
  9. HC/RAS 28/2022, , HC/RAS 28/2022
  10. HC/RAS 27/2022, , HC/RAS 27/2022
  11. DC/OSS 285/2021, , DC/OSS 285/2021
  12. DC/OSS 286/2021, , DC/OSS 286/2021
  13. DC/ORC2624/2022, , DC/ORC2624/2022
  14. DC/ORC 2622/2022, , DC/ORC 2622/2022
  15. DC/ORC 2625/2022, , DC/ORC 2625/2022
  16. DC/ORC 2623/2022, , DC/ORC 2623/2022

6. Timeline

DateEvent
District Court Originating Summons No 285 of 2021 filed
District Court Originating Summons No 286 of 2021 filed
District Judge found for the respondent in both claims
Order of Court DC/ORC2624/2022 issued
Order of Court DC/ORC 2625/2022 issued
NPBPP applied for leave to make further arguments
NPSM applied for leave to make further arguments
District Judge heard and dismissed the further arguments
Order of Court DC/ORC 2622/2022 issued
Order of Court DC/ORC 2623/2022 issued
NPSM instructed former solicitors to appeal
NPBPP instructed former solicitors to appeal
Notice of Appeal filed
NPSM replaced its former solicitors with its present solicitors
NPSM's present solicitors informed the respondent’s solicitors of intention to amend the Notice of Appeal
SUM 29 filed
SUM 30 filed
Dr Roy Chio's memo from Famicare Bedok Clinic was issued
SUM 156 filed
Hearing before Goh Yihan JC
Full grounds of decision provided

7. Legal Issues

  1. Amendment of Notice of Appeal
    • Outcome: The court held that the applications to amend the Notices of Appeal were, in substance, applications for an extension of time to file an appeal, and applied a more stringent standard, ultimately dismissing the applications.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Extension of time to file appeal
      • Substantive vs. technical amendment
    • Related Cases:
      • [2005] 2 SLR(R) 1
      • [2001] 1 SLR(R) 261
      • [2008] 1 SLR(R) 757
  2. Adduction of Further Evidence
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the application to adduce further evidence, finding that the requirements of non-availability, relevance, and credibility were not met.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1954] 1 WLR 1489
  3. Unfair Practice under Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act
    • Outcome: The court upheld the District Judge's finding that the companies had engaged in unfair practices under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act by making misleading representations and omitting information to consumers.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Misleading representation
      • Omission of information

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declarations
  2. Injunctions
  3. Publication Order
  4. Notification Order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Unfair practice under s 4(d) of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act
  • Unfair practice under s 4(a) of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Consumer Law

11. Industries

  • Beauty
  • Retail

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Projector SA v Marubeni International Petroleum (S) Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2005] 2 SLR(R) 1SingaporeCited for the principle that an application to amend a notice of appeal is, in essence, an application for an extension of time to file a fresh notice of appeal where it seeks to include an appeal against an order by the lower court which was not included in the original notice of appeal.
Leong Mei Chuan v Chan Teck Hock DavidCourt of AppealYes[2001] 1 SLR(R) 261SingaporeCited for the principle that an application to amend a notice of appeal is, in essence, an application for an extension of time to file a fresh notice of appeal where it seeks to include a new prayer in the appeal which was not granted by the lower court.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suitCourt of AppealYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 757SingaporeCited for the principle that the courts adopt a more stringent standard towards an application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
Chwee Kin Keong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 594SingaporeCited for policy considerations underpinning the exercise of the court’s discretion to allow an application to amend a notice of appeal.
Susilawati v American Express Bank LtdCourt of AppealYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 737SingaporeCited for policy considerations underpinning the exercise of the court’s discretion to allow an application to amend a notice of appeal.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3322 v Mer Vue Developments Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2016] 4 SLR 351SingaporeCited for the principle that Singapore courts do not tolerate favouring form over substance in civil procedure.
United Overseas Bank Ltd v Ng Huat Foundations Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2005] 2 SLR(R) 425SingaporeCited for the principle that the quest for justice entails a continuous need to balance the procedural with the substantive.
Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG and othersCourt of AppealYes[2005] SGCA 3SingaporeCited for the principle that the prejudice concerned is the prejudice to the would-be respondent if the extension of time were granted, and not the prejudice to the would-be appellant if the extension were not granted.
Chan Tam Hoi (alias Paul Chan) v Wang Jian and other mattersHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 192SingaporeCited regarding the relevance of jurisprudence in respect of O 18 r 8(6) of the Rules of Court 2021 to O 55D r 11 of the ROC 2014.
Ladd v MarshallEnglish CourtYes[1954] 1 WLR 1489EnglandCited for the threefold requirements for adducing further evidence on appeal: non-availability, relevance, and credibility.
Toh Eng Lan v Foong Fook Yue and another appealCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 833SingaporeCited for the application of the Ladd v Marshall requirements.
ARW v Comptroller of Income Tax and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 499SingaporeCited for the application of the Ladd v Marshall requirements.
AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co)Court of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 341SingaporeCited for the application of the Ladd v Marshall requirements and the spectrum of cases to which they apply.
Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore and another v Nail Palace (BPP) Pte Ltd and another matterDistrict CourtNo[2022] SGDC 171SingaporeThis is the judgment being appealed. The appeal was against the decision of the DJ in OSS 285 and OSS 286.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)
Rules of Court 2021
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act
  • Unfair practice
  • Misleading representation
  • Omission of information
  • Amendment of Notice of Appeal
  • Extension of time
  • Adduction of further evidence
  • Publication Order
  • Notification Order
  • Fungal treatment package
  • Visual assessment
  • Onycholysis
  • Tinea Pedis

15.2 Keywords

  • Consumer Protection
  • Fair Trading
  • Nail Palace
  • Appeal
  • Amendment
  • Evidence
  • Singapore

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Consumer Law
  • Appeals
  • Evidence

17. Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure
  • Consumer Protection Law
  • Appeals
  • Amendment of pleadings
  • Evidence Law