KB-2025-001929 - [2025] EWHC 2966 (KB)

The court was tasked with ruling on three applications from each “side” (that is, taking the two claimants together, having presented themselves as a unified front).

The claimants submit that the case raises a question of profound public interest. They allege that Shein has been involved in tax evasion and customs fraud. This is something Shein strenuously denies. The claimants submit that Shein seeks to “silence” them, and the application to consign the dispute to private arbitration is a “desperate attempt” to conceal the truth from the public. Shein refutes any such thing: it merely and legitimately relies on an arbitration clause in a valid contract between the parties that is now disputed because Shein is owed something over £1.5 million in overpayments it made to Orange. In response, Mr Du says in his filed witness statement of 7 July 2025:

“I do not bring this claim lightly. Litigation was never my intention. It is costly, exhausting, and deeply uncertain. But when the choice is between fighting and folding—and when livelihoods—not just balance sheets—are at stake—there comes a point where silence becomes complicity. … I am not here because we are the only company to be mistreated. I am here because, perhaps, we are the only one left that is willing—or able—to say so.”

Shein denies any misconduct whatsoever. I examine the claimants’ applications first, before turning the those of the defendant, this being the order the parties agreed to make submissions to the court.