Case Details
- Citation: [2022] SGHC 264
- Title: Janesh s/o Rajkumar v Unknown Person (“CHEFPIERRE”)
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Date of Decision: 21 October 2022
- Originating Process: Originating Claim No 41 of 2022
- Summons: Summons No 1800 of 2022
- Judge: Lee Seiu Kin J
- Hearing Date: 13 May 2022
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Janesh s/o Rajkumar
- Defendant/Respondent: Unknown Person (“CHEFPIERRE”)
- Legal Areas: Civil Procedure — Injunctions; Civil Procedure — Service
- Type of Relief Sought: Proprietary injunction restraining dealings with an NFT; substituted service out of jurisdiction
- Statutes Referenced: Bankruptcy Act; First Schedule of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act; First Schedule of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969
- Cases Cited (as provided): [2005] SGHC 150; [2016] SGHCR 7; [2022] SGHC 264; [2022] SGHC 46
- Judgment Length: 45 pages; 12,712 words
Summary
In Janesh s/o Rajkumar v Unknown Person (“CHEFPIERRE”) [2022] SGHC 264, the High Court considered whether a proprietary injunction could be granted to restrain an unknown defendant from dealing with a specific Non-Fungible Token (“NFT”)—a Bored Ape Yacht Club (“BAYC”) token—where the claimant alleged that he had lost “possession” of the NFT and needed urgent court protection. The case sits at the intersection of traditional common law remedies and the evolving question of whether digital assets can attract proprietary rights capable of being protected by injunction.
The court also addressed procedural issues concerning service. Because the defendant was identified only by a pseudonym associated with an online account, the claimant sought substituted service out of jurisdiction. The court’s analysis therefore proceeded in two tracks: first, whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the application against an unknown person and whether the proposed injunction was legally available; and second, whether the requirements for substituted service were satisfied.
Ultimately, the court granted the injunction and allowed the application for substituted service, finding that the claimant had established a serious question to be tried on the proprietary nature of the NFT and that the balance of convenience favoured granting interim relief. The decision is significant for practitioners because it confirms that, at least on the facts, the common law can extend to protect identifiable digital assets through proprietary injunctions, while also demonstrating how service mechanisms can be adapted to modern, cross-border, pseudonymous defendants.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The claimant, Janesh s/o Rajkumar, asserted that he was the owner of a particular BAYC NFT, identified as “BAYC ID #2162” (the “Bored Ape NFT”). He described the NFT as unique and irreplaceable, part of a collection of 10,000 apes with distinct attributes. According to the claimant, the NFT’s value was not merely speculative: it was tied to publicly verifiable provenance on the Ethereum blockchain, including a unique hash number and token ID, and to its specific visual traits and rarity characteristics as reflected on NFT marketplaces such as OpenSea.
Technically and commercially, the claimant’s account of the NFT’s distinctiveness was important to his legal position. He explained that each BAYC NFT is minted on the Ethereum blockchain with an individual hash recorded on-chain, which serves as publicly verifiable proof of provenance. He further relied on the NFT’s “traits” (such as “jovial mouth”, “red fur”, and “beanie hat”) and the concept of a “virgin ape”, which he said preserved the potential to generate a “Mutant Ape Yacht Club” NFT through future projects. In short, the claimant’s narrative was that the Bored Ape NFT was a specific asset with identifiable characteristics, not a fungible token that could be replaced by an equivalent.
On 6 August 2021, the claimant purchased the Bored Ape NFT for 15.99 ETH from a user operating under the pseudonym “victorjia_eth” on OpenSea. He then used the NFT as collateral in cryptocurrency lending transactions facilitated by NFTfi, a platform that uses smart contracts. The claimant said that he took special care when using the Bored Ape NFT as collateral because of its personal and financial value. He would only deal with reputable lenders and would specify terms designed to prevent the lender from obtaining ownership or disposing of the NFT.
Those terms were operationalised through NFTfi’s smart program. The claimant’s stated safeguards included: (a) transferring the NFT to NFTfi’s escrow account until full repayment; (b) allowing reasonable extensions of time if repayment was not made on schedule; (c) prohibiting the lender from using the “foreclose” option without first giving the claimant reasonable opportunities to repay and retrieve the NFT; and (d) ensuring the lender could not obtain ownership or any right to sell or dispose of the NFT. The claimant said he had successfully borrowed and repaid numerous loans under these terms without any foreclosure or attempt to remove the NFT from his possession.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first cluster of issues concerned jurisdiction and the court’s ability to grant relief against an unknown defendant. The defendant was not identified by name; instead, the claimant knew the alleged counterparty only by the pseudonym “chefpierre.eth”. The court therefore had to consider whether it could properly hear and determine an application for injunction where the respondent was unknown, and whether the procedural steps taken to serve the application were adequate.
The second cluster concerned the substantive availability of a proprietary injunction over an NFT. The claimant sought an injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with the Bored Ape NFT. This required the court to consider whether the NFT (or NFTs generally) could be the subject of proprietary rights under Singapore law, and whether such rights could be protected by the equitable remedy of a proprietary injunction. The court’s reasoning was influenced by its earlier decision in CLM v CLN [2022] SGHC 46, which had addressed similar questions in the context of stolen cryptocurrency assets (Bitcoin and Ethereum) and had considered the analysis in Ruscoe v Cryptopia Ltd (in liq) [2020] 2 NZLR 809.
Third, the court had to apply the well-established interim injunction framework: whether there was a serious question to be tried, and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. Finally, the court had to decide whether the application for substituted service out of jurisdiction should be granted, given the defendant’s pseudonymous identity and the practical difficulties of effecting ordinary service.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by situating the case within the broader development of proprietary injunctions in the context of digital assets. It noted that the rapid pace of technological change will increasingly require common law principles to be applied to new forms of property. The court expressly referenced the earlier decision in CLM, where it had concluded that a claimant could establish a serious arguable case that stolen cryptocurrency assets were capable of giving rise to proprietary rights protected by a proprietary injunction. The court treated the present application as raising similar issues, but with the additional complexity that the asset was an NFT rather than cryptocurrency.
On the question of jurisdiction against an unknown person, the court’s analysis focused on whether the court could grant effective relief and whether the procedural requirements for bringing the defendant before the court could be satisfied. The court recognised that the defendant’s identity was not fully known, but it accepted that the claimant had identified the defendant through a pseudonymous online account and had explained that, with time, the defendant’s identity could likely be traced. This supported the view that the application was not speculative; it was anchored to a specific alleged wrongdoer and a specific asset.
Substantively, the court analysed whether the Bored Ape NFT could be treated as capable of attracting proprietary rights. The court’s reasoning reflected the logic that proprietary injunctions require an identifiable asset and a proprietary interest in that asset. The claimant’s evidence about uniqueness and on-chain provenance was therefore central. The court considered that the Bored Ape NFT was not merely a generic token; it had a unique token ID and hash recorded on the blockchain, and it had distinctive characteristics that made it capable of being treated as an identifiable object. The court also considered the claimant’s account of how the NFT’s value depended on its specific identity and rarity traits, rather than on fungibility.
In applying the “serious question to be tried” test, the court did not require the claimant to prove his case fully at the interlocutory stage. Instead, it asked whether there was a serious arguable case that the claimant had proprietary rights in the NFT and that those rights could be protected by injunction. Drawing on CLM and the reasoning in Ruscoe, the court found that the claimant had crossed the threshold of a serious question. The court’s approach indicated that the proprietary injunction framework can accommodate digital assets where the claimant can show an identifiable asset and a plausible proprietary basis.
The court then turned to the balance of convenience. In proprietary injunction cases, the practical effect of interim relief is often decisive: without an injunction, the asset may be dissipated, transferred, or otherwise dealt with in a way that frustrates the claimant’s ability to obtain effective final relief. Here, the claimant alleged that he had lost possession of the Bored Ape NFT and needed urgent protection to prevent further dealings by the defendant. The court accepted that the NFT’s nature and the speed with which blockchain-based assets can be transferred meant that delay could cause irreparable harm. The court also considered that the injunction would be limited to restraining dealings with the specific NFT, thereby tailoring the relief to the alleged proprietary interest.
Finally, the court addressed substituted service out of jurisdiction. The defendant was an unknown person associated with a pseudonym. The court considered the practical realities of serving such a defendant and the need to ensure that the defendant would have notice of the proceedings. It held that substituted service was appropriate on the facts, given the claimant’s inability to identify the defendant by conventional means and the urgency of the application. The court’s decision reflects a pragmatic application of service rules to modern disputes, while still safeguarding procedural fairness.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court granted the claimant the proprietary injunction sought against the defendant, restraining the defendant from dealing with the Bored Ape NFT. The practical effect was to preserve the status quo and prevent the defendant from transferring, disposing of, or otherwise dealing with the specific NFT pending the determination of the substantive claim.
The court also granted the application for substituted service out of jurisdiction. This enabled the claimant to proceed with the action despite the defendant being identified only by a pseudonym, thereby ensuring that the proceedings could move forward and that the injunction could be effectively enforced.
Why Does This Case Matter?
Janesh s/o Rajkumar v Unknown Person (“CHEFPIERRE”) is important because it reinforces and extends Singapore’s emerging approach to proprietary injunctions over digital assets. While earlier cases had already grappled with cryptocurrency, this decision addresses NFTs—assets that are often marketed and traded as unique collectibles with identifiable metadata and provenance. By accepting that the claimant had a serious arguable case that an NFT could be the subject of proprietary rights, the court provided a doctrinal pathway for claimants seeking urgent interim relief in NFT-related disputes.
For practitioners, the case is also a reminder that the success of proprietary injunction applications in the digital context will depend heavily on evidential framing. The claimant’s detailed description of uniqueness, on-chain identifiers, and the practical inability to replace the asset supported the argument that the NFT was identifiable and capable of attracting proprietary protection. Lawyers advising clients in similar circumstances should therefore focus on building a clear evidentiary record linking the alleged proprietary interest to a specific token and demonstrating why damages would be inadequate.
Procedurally, the decision is equally valuable. It illustrates how substituted service can be used where defendants are pseudonymous or otherwise difficult to identify, particularly in cross-border online disputes. This is likely to become increasingly relevant as blockchain transactions and NFT markets are inherently international and often involve parties who operate under aliases. The case therefore offers guidance on both substantive and procedural strategies for obtaining effective interim relief.
Legislation Referenced
- Bankruptcy Act
- First Schedule of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- First Schedule of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969
Cases Cited
- [2005] SGHC 150
- [2016] SGHCR 7
- [2022] SGHC 264
- [2022] SGHC 46
Source Documents
This article analyses [2022] SGHC 264 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.