JULIAN MORENO BELTRAN & Anor v TERRAFORM LABS PTE. LTD. & 3 Ors

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 340 consider?

The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), and International Arbitration Act (Cap 10). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHC 340 High Court (General Division) 30 November 2023 HC/OC 247/2022 ( HC/RA 185/2023,HC/RA 186/2023 ) 92 min read

27 cases cited (20 SG, 7 foreign)

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	30 November 2023
Judge	Hri Kumar Nair
Charges / claim	Arbitration, Civil Procedure
Counsel	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP, Drew & Napier LLC, Setia Law LLC, Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash Rai, Ong Tun Wei Danny, Paul Aman Singh Sambhi, Shirlene Leong Hong Mei, Shreya Vijay Kittur, Tan Mazie, Teh Kee Wee Lawrence, Teo Jason, Thng Huilin Melissa, Yap Keong Wee Brandon, Yong Wei Jun Jonathan, Zhao Heng

Source: [2023] SGHC 340, High Court (General Division), decided 30 November 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Arbitration — Stay of court proceedings — Step in the proceedings Civil Procedure — Rules of Court 2021 — Jurisdictional challenges Civil Procedure — Representative actions — Interaction with arbitration agreements Arbitration — Stay of court proceedings — Existence of a prima facie arbitration agreement — Online agreements

Practice Areas

Arbitration Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Hri Kumar Nair Delivered

Counsel (15)

Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Firm Drew & Napier LLC Firm Setia Law LLC Firm Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash Rai Counsel Plaintiff Ong Tun Wei Danny Counsel Defendant Paul Aman Singh Sambhi Counsel Defendant Shirlene Leong Hong Mei Counsel Defendant Shreya Vijay Kittur Counsel Plaintiff Tan Mazie Counsel Defendant Teh Kee Wee Lawrence Counsel Defendant Teo Jason Counsel Defendant Thng Huilin Melissa Counsel Defendant Yap Keong Wee Brandon Counsel Plaintiff Yong Wei Jun Jonathan Counsel Plaintiff Zhao Heng Counsel Defendant

Parties (6)

Luna Foundation Guard Ltd Defendant Terraform Labs Pte Ltd Defendant Douglas Gan Yi Dong Plaintiff Julian Moreno Beltran Plaintiff Kwon Do Hyeong Defendant Nikolaos Alexandros Platias Defendant

Case Significance

JULIAN MORENO BELTRAN & Anor v TERRAFORM LABS PTE. LTD. & 3 Ors [2023] SGHC 340 is a decision of the General Division of the High Court delivered by Hri Kumar Nair J on 30 November 2023, comprising Registrar's Appeals Nos 185 and 186 of 2023 in Originating Claim No 247 of 2022. Claimants Julian Moreno Beltran and Douglas Gan Yi Dong pursued a representative action against Terraform Labs Pte Ltd, Kwon Do Hyeong, Nikolaos Alexandros Platias and Luna Foundation Guard Ltd. Terraform sought a stay based on an online arbitration agreement, while the other defendants applied on case management grounds. The court dismissed the appeals, engaging questions on step in the proceedings, jurisdictional challenges and the interaction between representative actions and arbitration agreements under the Arbitration Act and International Arbitration Act.

[2023] SGHC 340 explained

JULIAN MORENO BELTRAN & Anor v TERRAFORM LABS PTE. LTD. & 3 Ors ([2023] SGHC 340) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 30 November 2023. It is categorised under Arbitration and Civil Procedure. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. 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 340 about?

JULIAN MORENO BELTRAN & Anor v TERRAFORM LABS PTE. LTD. & 3 Ors ([2023] SGHC 340) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Arbitration — Stay of court proceedings — Step in the proceedings”, “Civil Procedure — Rules of Court 2021 — Jurisdictional challenges”, “Civil Procedure — Representative actions — Interaction with arbitration agreements”, and “Arbitration — Stay of court proceedings — Existence of a prima facie arbitration agreement — Online agreements”, 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 340 consider?

The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), and International Arbitration Act (Cap 10). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2023] SGHC 340 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2023] SGHC(A) 5. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

Two individuals who purchased algorithmic stablecoin tokens (TerraUSD) brought a representative action in the High Court against Terraform Labs and other defendants. Terraform sought a stay in favour of arbitration based on an arbitration agreement said to be incorporated in online contracts, while the other defendants sought a stay on case management grounds, raising issues about whether a defendant had taken a "step in the proceedings" under the International Arbitration Act. Hri Kumar Nair J dismissed both appeals against the Assistant Registrar's refusal of the stay applications.

What was Beltran v Terraform Labs [2023] SGHC 340 about?

It concerned stay applications in a representative action against Terraform Labs and others, where Terraform relied on an online arbitration agreement. Hri Kumar Nair J dismissed Registrar's Appeals Nos 185 and 186 of 2023 on 30 November 2023.

Who were the defendants in Beltran v Terraform Labs [2023] SGHC 340?

The defendants were Terraform Labs Pte Ltd, Kwon Do Hyeong, Nikolaos Alexandros Platias and Luna Foundation Guard Ltd. Claimants Julian Moreno Beltran and Douglas Gan Yi Dong brought a representative action, with the stay appeals dismissed by Hri Kumar Nair J.

Statutes Cited

Arbitration Act (Cap 10) Cases on this Act →

International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A) Cases on this Act →

s 6(1)

Cases Cited (27)

SG (2)

[2013] SGHCR 28 [2023] SGHC(A) 5

SLR (18)

[1993] 1 SLR(R) 793 [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 [1998] 2 SLR(R) 646 [2001] 1 SLR(R) 261 [2001] 2 SLR(R) 777 [2003] 4 SLR(R) 499 [2005] 1 SLR(R) 168 [2008] 4 SLR(R) 460 [2009] 4 SLR(R) 732 [2013] 4 SLR 1204 [2014] 4 SLR 500 [2015] 5 SLR 707 [2016] 1 SLR 373 [2016] 3 SLR 801 [2017] 1 SLR 312 [2019] 1 SLR 779 [2020] 1 SLR 1158 [2021] 2 SLR 342

UK (6)

[1902] 1 KB 480 [1903] 2 Ch 222 [1918] 1 KB 358 [1993] 1 All ER 959 [2002] 2 All ER 159 [2021] EWHC 842

AU (1)

[2020] FCA 1846