Mr. Cheng’s attorney argued on Tuesday that both companies had made deliberate efforts to follow the orders since the contempt of court ruling, and that this helped to address the breach and demonstrate their shame.
According to attorney Gary Low of Drew &, Napier, the measures they took included implementing a new client warning form from January 24 and publishing the necessary observes in four major newspapers on January 28.
Even if these actions were made after the purchases arrived late in the day, Mr. Low claimed the jury might have allowed them. He pleaded with Justice Lim to provide them “heavy account” and shorten Mr. Cheng’s sentence.
Mr. Cheng’s prison sentence was justified, according to Mr. Kenny Chooi of Adsan Law, because his company repeatedly broke court purchases.
According to Mr. Chooi, the purpose of Parliament’s decision to provide court orders under the Consumer Protection ( Fair Trading ) Act is to raise consumer awareness, enable informed purchasing decisions, grant consumers the right to choose whether to transact with an errant retailer, monitor errant businesses, and serve as deterrent.
These intentions illustrate the kinds of damage that are brought on by court orders. He claimed that it deprived users of the ability to make informed decisions about Nail Palace for the duration of the violation.
He noted that between the initial court orders issued to Nail Palace in September 2022 and the actions the corporations took in January, there was a gap of about two and a half years.
Additionally, parties strove to determine whether Nail Palace’s fresh consumer warning form complied with court orders.
The CCCS solicitor, Mr. Chooi, claimed that because the forms were simply made available to customers after some hammer services had already been performed, the orders were not satisfied.
Two Organizations officials ‘ documents claimed that they were notified of this after their manicure or manicures had already begun when they visited the two Nail Palace trees in February and March.
When Mr. Low, Kaiden Cheng’s attorney, argued that just “preparatory functions” for the nails services had begun, Justice Lim questioned him about whether cleaning fingernails and applying basecoats were separate from manicures and pedicures.
She once posed the question,” What’s the meaning of a manicure or pedicure?” Could you kindly tell me something? Basically, apply the ink simply, is that what it is”?
Mr. Chooi also cited the CCCS officers ‘ description of how Nail Palace staff had instructed them to” just sign at the bottom” of the form, which did not specify what the purpose of the form but claimed that the government had mandated it.
He argued that this would create the false idea that a name was required and put pressure on the user to sign the form.
Mr. Chooi claimed that these actions were only a “box-ticking exercise” and did not adhere to the” material, purpose, and soul” of the court orders.
On May 19, events may go back to the High Court to hear their decisions.