NAIL PALACE (BPP) PTE. LTD. v COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION OF SINGAPORE

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 111 consider?

The judgment refers to Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (Cap 52A) and Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHC 111 High Court (General Division) 26 April 2023 HC/RAS 27/2022 ( HC/SUM 30/2023,HC/SUM 156/2023 ) · HC/RAS 28/2022 ( HC/SUM 29/2023 ) 36 min read

15 cases cited (14 SG, 1 foreign) Cited by 3 cases

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	26 April 2023
Judge	Goh Yihan
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Counsel	Adsan Law LLC, KSCGP Juris LLP, Chooi Yue Wai Kenny, Joel Jaryn Yap Shen, Paul Aman Singh Sambhi, Singh Navinder

Source: [2023] SGHC 111, High Court (General Division), decided 26 April 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Amendment of notice of appeal Civil Procedure — Appeals — Adduction of further evidence

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Goh Yihan Delivered

Counsel (6)

Adsan Law LLC Firm KSCGP Juris LLP Firm Chooi Yue Wai Kenny Counsel Respondent Joel Jaryn Yap Shen Counsel Respondent Paul Aman Singh Sambhi Counsel Appellant Singh Navinder Counsel Appellant

Parties (3)

Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore Respondent Nail Palace (BPP) Pte Ltd Appellant Nail Palace (SM) Pte Ltd Appellant

Case Significance

Nail Palace (BPP) Pte Ltd v Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore and another matter [2023] SGHC 111 is a grounds of decision of Goh Yihan JC in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 26 April 2023 in Registrar's Appeal (State Courts) No 27 of 2022 (Summonses Nos 30 and 156 of 2023) and Registrar's Appeal (State Courts) No 28 of 2022 (Summons No 29 of 2023). Three applications were before the court — HC/SUM 29/2023, HC/SUM 30/2023 and HC/SUM 156/2023 — arising in the broader appeals brought by Nail Palace (BPP) Pte Ltd and Nail Palace (SM) Pte Ltd against the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore under s 9 of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. The catchwords concern amendment of a notice of appeal and the adduction of further evidence.

[2023] SGHC 111 explained

NAIL PALACE (BPP) PTE. LTD. v COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION OF SINGAPORE ([2023] SGHC 111) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 26 April 2023. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 3 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC 111 about?

NAIL PALACE (BPP) PTE. LTD. v COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION OF SINGAPORE ([2023] SGHC 111) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Appeals — Amendment of notice of appeal” and “Civil Procedure — Appeals — Adduction of further evidence”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 111 consider?

The judgment refers to Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (Cap 52A) and Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

How influential is [2023] SGHC 111?

Within this corpus, [2023] SGHC 111 has been cited by 3 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

Nail Palace (BPP) and Nail Palace (SM), manicure and pedicure businesses, faced claims by the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore that they committed an unfair practice under s 4(d) of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act by making misleading representations about the need for a fungal treatment package. Before the substantive appeals, the companies brought three summonses seeking to amend their notices of appeal and adduce further evidence. Goh Yihan JC dismissed all three summonses and ordered costs of $5,000 for each against the appellants.

What did the court decide in Nail Palace (BPP) Pte Ltd v Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore [2023] SGHC 111?

Goh Yihan JC heard three applications — HC/SUM 29/2023, HC/SUM 30/2023 and HC/SUM 156/2023 — concerning amendment of a notice of appeal and the adduction of further evidence in the Registrar's Appeals under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. Delivered 26 April 2023.

What were the underlying proceedings in Nail Palace (BPP) Pte Ltd v Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore [2023] SGHC 111?

The applications arose within Registrar's Appeals brought by Nail Palace (BPP) Pte Ltd and Nail Palace (SM) Pte Ltd against the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore under s 9 of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, following District Court originating summonses.

Statutes Cited

Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (Cap 52A)

Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) Cases on this Act →

Cases Cited (15)

SG (4)

[2000] SGHC 150 [2005] SGCA 3 [2022] SGDC 171 [2022] SGHC 192

SLR (10)

[1998] 3 SLR(R) 833 [2001] 1 SLR(R) 261 [2004] 2 SLR(R) 594 [2005] 2 SLR(R) 1 [2005] 2 SLR(R) 425 [2008] 1 SLR(R) 757 [2009] 2 SLR(R) 737 [2016] 4 SLR 351 [2019] 1 SLR 499 [2019] 2 SLR 341

UK (1)

[1954] 1 WLR 1489