Nail Palace v Competition and Consumer Commission: Unfair Practices & Consumer Protection

Nail Palace (BPP) Pte Ltd and Nail Palace (SM) Pte Ltd appealed against the decision of the District Court in proceedings brought by the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore regarding unfair practices related to fungal treatment packages. The High Court, General Division, dismissed the appeals, upholding the declarations, injunctions, and accompanying orders made by the District Court. The court found that the appellants had engaged in unfair practices under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeals dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Nail Palace appeals against orders related to unfair practices in fungal treatment packages. The court dismisses the appeals, upholding consumer protection.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Nail Palace (BPP) Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationAppeal dismissedLost
Competition and Consumer Commission of SingaporeRespondent, PlaintiffGovernment AgencyAppeal dismissedWon
Nail Palace (SM) Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationAppeal dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Goh YihanJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

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

4. Facts

  1. The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore brought proceedings against Nail Palace (BPP) Pte Ltd and Nail Palace (SM) Pte Ltd.
  2. The proceedings concerned unfair practices in relation to fungal treatment packages.
  3. The respondent sought declarations, final injunctions, and accompanying orders under s 9 of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act.
  4. The District Judge granted most of the reliefs sought by the respondent.
  5. The appellants appealed against the Publication Order and the Consumer Notification and Consent Order.
  6. The appellants were found to have engaged in unfair practices under s 4(d) of the CPFTA.
  7. The appellants made misleading representations to consumers concerning the need for fungal treatment packages.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Nail Palace (BPP) Pte Ltd v Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore and another appeal, , [2023] SGHC 203
  2. Nail Palace (BPP) Pte Ltd v Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore, , HC/RAS 27/2022
  3. Nail Palace (SM) Pte Ltd v Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore, , HC/RAS 28/2022
  4. Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore v Nail Palace (BPP) Pte Ltd, , HC/OSS 285/2021
  5. Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore v Nail Palace (SM) Pte Ltd, , HC/OSS 286/2021
  6. Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore v Triple Lifestyle Marketing Pte Ltd and another, , DC/OA 105/2022
  7. Nail Palace (BPP) Pte Ltd v Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore, , DC/SUM 3465/2022

6. Timeline

DateEvent
District Judge made orders against the appellants.
Deadlines for compliance with accompanying orders extended.
Date from which the orders were stated to run.
Appellants to publish details of declaration and injunction granted against them within twenty-one days.
Appellants must notify consumers in writing about the declaration and injunction in force against them during a period of two years.
Appellants made a stay application.
Stay application dismissed by the District Judge.
Hearing date.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Unfair Practices
    • Outcome: The court found that the appellants had engaged in unfair practices by making misleading representations to consumers concerning the need for fungal treatment packages.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Consumer Protection
    • Outcome: The court emphasized the importance of consumer awareness and protection against unfair business practices.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Injunctions
    • Outcome: The court discussed the purposes of an injunction in the context of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, including preventing future harm and marking the court's disapproval of unfair practices.
    • Category: Procedural
  4. Accompanying Orders
    • Outcome: The court considered the principles for granting accompanying orders, such as the Publication Order and the Consumer Notification and Consent Order, to ensure consumer awareness and deter unfair practices.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declarations
  2. Injunctions
  3. Accompanying Orders

9. Cause of Actions

  • Unfair Practice
  • Misleading Representation

10. Practice Areas

  • Consumer Protection
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Beauty
  • Retail

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore v Nail Palace (BPP) Pte Ltd and another matterDistrict CourtYes[2022] SGDC 171SingaporeThe High Court was hearing an appeal from this decision. The High Court Judge referred to the District Judge's judgment as admirably clear and comprehensive.
Nail Palace (BPP) Pte Ltd v Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore and another matterHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 111SingaporeExplained the circumstances as to why the appellants’ appeals are only confined to their respective Publication Order and the CNC Order.
Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore v Triple Lifestyle Marketing Pte Ltd and anotherDistrict CourtYesDC/OA 105/2022SingaporeThe appellants referred to this case to argue that the orders made against them were not necessary given the small number of complaints compared to the number of complaints in Triple Lifestyle.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (No 2)Federal Court of AustraliaYes[2012] FCA 629AustraliaThe respondent cited this case to support the rationale behind the Publication Order and the CNC Order, emphasizing the importance of public awareness and general deterrence.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty LtdFederal Court of AustraliaYes[2000] FCA 1893AustraliaCited for the principle that if there has already been a large amount of publicity about the supplier’s conduct and the sanctions imposed by the court, then a further accompanying order may not be warranted.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd (No 3)Federal Court of AustraliaYes(2010) 276 ALR 102AustraliaCited to illustrate that it would have been disproportionate to require the respondent to undertake corrective advertising on all the homepages of its websites.
Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 609SingaporeCited for the principle of proportionality.
Low Heng Leon Andy v Low Kian Beng Lawrence (administrator of the estate of Tan Ah Kng, deceased)Court of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 799SingaporeCited for the principle of proportionality.
The Online Citizen Pte Ltd v Attorney-General and another appeal and other mattersCourt of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 1358SingaporeCited for the principle of proportionality.
Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha LtdFederal Court of AustraliaYes(2006) 232 ALR 478AustraliaCited to illustrate that a statutory injunction may, in addition to preventing future conduct, serve other purposes, including marking the court’s disapproval of the restrained conduct.
Re ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd v Trade Practices CommissionFederal Court of AustraliaYes(1992) 110 ALR 47AustraliaCited for the principle that one purpose of an injunction is to prevent future harm caused by an unfair practice.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v 4WD Systems Pty Ltd and OthersFederal Court of AustraliaYes(2003) 200 ALR 491AustraliaCited for the principle that the purpose of an appropriately drafted injunction may be merely to reinforce to the marketplace that the restrained behaviour is unacceptable, which is in the public interest.
Dynamic Supplies Pty Limited v Tonnex International Pty Limited (No 2)Federal Court of AustraliaYes[2011] FCA 675AustraliaCited for the principle that the court granted an injunction against the supplier to reinforce the need for the supplier to remain vigilant to ensure that its conduct does not again contravene ss 52 and 53 of the Trade Practices Act.
POA Enterprises Pty Ltd, Parcour Pty Ltd and Malcolm Richard Anderson trading as Stratford Village Pharmacy v Chemist Warehouse Cairns & AnorSupreme Court of QueenslandYes[2012] QSC 316AustraliaCited for the principle that the court would be slow to grant an injunction where the underlying cause of contravention was such the defendant is, at the time of judgment, no longer in a position where contravention is likely.
Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd v LG Electronics Australia Pty Limited (No 2)Federal Court of AustraliaYes[2015] FCA 477AustraliaCited for the principle that even putting aside the question of the risk of the unfair practice eventuating, the court may also, as a mark of its disapproval, grant injunctive relief where the harm caused by the unfair practice, or its repetition, is severe.
Mercedes Benz AG v LeiduckPrivy CouncilYes[1996] AC 284United KingdomCited for the principle that a quia timet injunction in the prohibitory form, which can be granted to restraint the defendant’s wrongful acts which have not yet been committed, although this discretion must be exercised cautiously.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dataline.Net.Au Pty LtdFederal Court of AustraliaYes(2007) 161 FCR 513AustraliaCited for the principle that if Parliament has not provided for imprisonment in connection with a contravention, it may not be appropriate for a court to enjoin such conduct simply in order to create the possibility of imprisonment.
Trade Practices Commission v ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd and OthersFederal Court of AustraliaYes(1991) 105 ALR 115AustraliaCited for the principle that an injunction should be granted as the norm rather than the exception.
Carlton Illustrators and another v Coleman & Company, LimitedHigh CourtYes[1911] 1 KB 771England and WalesCited to illustrate the purpose of an equitable injunction as a means of preventing future harm.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) ActSingapore
Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003Singapore
Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2005 s 21Singapore
Companies Act 1967 Part 7Singapore
Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 s 71Singapore
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)Australia
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)Australia
Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic)Australia
Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore
Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) Act (Cap 122A, 1998 Rev Ed)Singapore
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)Australia

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Unfair Practice
  • Consumer Protection
  • Fungal Treatment Package
  • Injunction
  • Accompanying Order
  • Publication Order
  • Consumer Notification and Consent Order
  • Misleading Representation
  • Consumer Transaction

15.2 Keywords

  • Consumer Protection
  • Unfair Practices
  • Injunction
  • Accompanying Orders
  • Nail Palace
  • Fungal Treatment
  • Misleading Representation

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Consumer Law95
Misrepresentation85
Commercial Disputes80
Injunctions70
Contract Law60

16. Subjects

  • Consumer Law
  • Commercial Law
  • Civil Procedure