Parastate Labs Inc v Wang Li and others - [2023] SGHC 48 - Grounds of Decision

Sep 24, 2026

Grounds of decision in the General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore address whether court proceedings should be stayed pending resolution of a related arbitration. The court first required a mandatory stay of claims against Babel Asia under s 6 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 due to an arbitration agreement. It then ordered a case management stay over the remainder of the action pending a putative arbitration between Parastate Labs Inc and Babel Asia, while assessing whether conditions should be imposed.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages22

Reading Time55 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Background

Parties

The management agreement and the arbitration agreement

Procedural history

Parastate’s preliminary objection

Whether the whole action should be stayed

Parastate’s claims

Principles regarding stay of court proceedings pending resolution of a related arbitration

Whether conditions should be imposed for a case management stay

Conclusion

IN THE GENERAL DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2023] SGHC 48 Originating Claim No 130 of 2022 (Summons No 3651 of 2022) Between (1) Parastate Labs Inc Claimant And (1) Wang Li (2) Yang Zhou (3) Babel Asia Asset Management Private Limited (4) Babel Holding Limited …Defendants GROUNDS OF DECISION [Arbitration—Stay of court proceedings—Case management stay— Whether court proceedings should be stayed pending resolution of arbitration] Version No 2: 28 Feb 2023 (12:21 hrs) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................2 PARTIES ..........................................................................................................2 THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT AND THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT ............2 PROCEDURAL HISTORY ............................................................................3 PARASTATE’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION .........................................3 WHETHER THE WHOLE ACTION SHOULD BE STAYED ..................4 PARASTATE ’S CLAIMS .....................................................................................4 PRINCIPLES REGARDING STAY OF COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED ARBITRATION ......................................................6 THE WHOLE ACTION SHOULD BE STAYED ........................................................7 WHETHER CONDITIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR A CASE MANAGEMENT STAY......................................................................................19 CONCLUSION...............................................................................................20 ii Version No 2: 28 Feb 2023 (12:21 hrs) This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports. Parastate Labs Inc v Wang Li and others [2023] SGHC 48 General Division of the High Court—Originating Claim No 130 of 2022 (Summons No 3651 of 2022) Andre Maniam J 28 November 2022 28 February 2023 Andre Maniam J: Introduction 1 I ordered a stay of the claims by the claimant (“Parastate”) against the third defendant (“Babel Asia”) pursuant to s 6 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (“IAA”)– that stay was mandatory as there was an arbitration agreement between them. 2 On the application of the first defendant, Mr Wang, I then ordered a case management stay of the rest ofthe action, pending the resolution of the putative arbitration between Parastate and Babel Asia. The claimant has appealed against the case management stay in Summons 3651 of 2022 (“SUM 3651”), but not against the arbitration stay in relation to Babel Asia in Summons 3639 of 2022 (“SUM 3639”) . These are my grounds of decision. Version No 2: 28 Feb 2023 (12:21 hrs) Parastate Labs Inc v Wang Li [2023] SGHC 48 Background Parties 3 Parastate invested in the Babel Quant Alpha USDT Fund (“the Fund”), which was managed by a cryptocurrency financial services provider trading as“Babel Finance”. 4 The Babel Finance entity that Parastate contracted with was Babel Asia, a company wholly owned by the fourth defendant (“Babel Holding”) . 5 Mr Wang and the second defendant, Mr Yang, were two of five cofounders of Babel Holding: at the time of incorporation, Mr Wang had a 30% shareholding, and Mr Yang had a 40% shareholding.1 6 Mr Wang and Mr Yang were also directors of Babel Asia: Mr Wang from 21 June 2022 to date, Mr Yang from 29 July 2021 to 18 January 2022. The management agreement and the arbitration agreement 7 Parastate and Babel Asia entered into a management agreement, following which Parastate invested into the Fund. 8 Clause 6.3 of the management agreement was a dispute resolu

FAQs

Why did the court order a stay of claims against Babel Asia?

The court ordered a mandatory stay pursuant to s 6 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 because there was an arbitration agreement between Parastate Labs Inc and Babel Asia.

What was the purpose of the case management stay ordered in SUM 3651?

After staying the claims against Babel Asia, the court ordered a case management stay of the rest of the action pending resolution of a putative arbitration between Parastate and Babel Asia.

What question did the court consider regarding staying the whole action?

The court assessed whether the whole action should be stayed pending resolution of the related arbitration and addressed whether conditions should be imposed for such a case management stay.

Sep 24, 2026

Upload by Olivia Brown