Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC(I) 6
- Case Title: Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte. Ltd. v Udenna Corporation
- Court: Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC)
- Originating Application No: OA 23 of 2023
- Summons No: SUM 27 of 2024
- Originating Application No: OA 4 of 2024
- Summons Nos: SUM 11 of 2024 and SUM 42 of 2024
- Judgment Date: 5 March 2025
- Judge: Sir Henry Bernard Eder IJ
- Hearing Type: Judgment without an oral hearing (delivered following receipt of written submissions)
- Parties: Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte. Ltd. (Claimant/Applicant) v P-H-O-E-N-I-X Petroleum Philippines, Inc. (also known as Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, Inc.) and Udenna Corporation (Defendants/Respondents)
- Procedural Context: Costs judgment following earlier substantive decisions and related Court of Appeal proceedings
- Legal Area: Civil procedure—costs (in the arbitration-support context)
- Statutes Referenced: International Arbitration Act 1994
- Other Instruments Referenced: UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (as set out and modified in the First Schedule to the International Arbitration Act)
- Rules Referenced: Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 (including Order 22 Rule 3(1) and Order 23)
- Cases Cited: Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries [2023] 1 SLR 96; Udenna Corp v Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd [2025] 1 SLR 19
- Prior Related Decision(s): Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd v P-H-O-E-N-I-X Petroleum Philippines, Inc (also known as Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, Inc) and another [2025] 3 SLR 1 (“the Judgment”)
- Judgment Length: 18 pages; 4,529 words
Summary
This SICC judgment concerns the determination of costs arising from multiple interlocutory applications connected to an arbitration-related dispute. The court’s decision is delivered after a prior substantive judgment and after the withdrawal of certain applications, leaving only the question of who should bear costs and, critically, the quantum of costs claimed by the successful party.
The court held that, for SUM 27, the claimant (Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd, “PIMD”) succeeded in resisting Udenna Corporation’s application to set aside service of originating papers, and the parties agreed that Udenna, as the losing party, should bear costs. For OA 4, SUM 11, and SUM 42, the applications were withdrawn following the discontinuance of related Philippines proceedings; however, the parties were unable to agree on costs allocation. The court therefore addressed both the entitlement to costs and the reasonableness of the amounts claimed, applying proportionality and reasonableness principles under the SICC Rules.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The costs decision sits within a broader procedural history. The court had previously issued a substantive judgment in Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd v P-H-O-E-N-I-X Petroleum Philippines, Inc (also known as Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, Inc) and another [2025] 3 SLR 1 (“the Judgment”). That earlier decision concerned arbitration-support proceedings and, in particular, the service of originating papers in the SICC. The present judgment is expressly a “costs” judgment that follows from the earlier decision and subsequent developments in the related applications.
In summary, Udenna brought SUM 27 in OA 23 to set aside the service of the originating papers. The SICC dismissed SUM 27 on 27 September 2024. Udenna then sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, but the Court of Appeal dismissed that attempt on 27 November 2024 in Udenna Corp v Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd [2025] 1 SLR 19. This procedural outcome is important because it establishes that Udenna was unsuccessful on the service challenge, and the costs consequences flowed from that.
Separately, PIMD brought OA 4 on 8 March 2024 seeking orders compelling Udenna to withdraw a “Comment” filed in the Philippines courts and to obtain a permanent anti-suit injunction restraining Udenna from pursuing or continuing the reliefs sought in that Comment. The Comment was filed by Udenna on 5 February 2024 in the Philippines proceedings. In that Comment, Udenna sought to join Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, Inc in Phoenix’s application in the Philippines and to declare the Final Award dated 28 November 2023 (SIA C Award No. 145 of 2023) void, and also sought an injunction against PIMD to restrain enforcement of the Final Award against Udenna.
Within OA 4, PIMD brought SUM 11 for an interim anti-suit injunction, initially on an ex parte basis. The SICC granted the interim anti-suit injunction on 15 March 2024, and the order was extracted as SIC/ORC 14/2024 (“ORC 14”). Udenna also brought SUM 42 in OA 4 to set aside service of the originating papers in OA 4, raising similar grounds to those advanced in SUM 27. Because SUM 42 overlapped with SUM 27, it was stayed pending the outcome of the appeal process in OAS 3. Ultimately, on 9 January 2025, PIMD notified the court that the Philippines proceedings had been discontinued and that the related appeal had been fully resolved. The parties then consented to the withdrawal of OA 4 and SUM 42, leaving only costs to be determined.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first legal issue was costs entitlement and allocation across multiple applications with different procedural outcomes. For SUM 27, the parties agreed that Udenna should bear costs because it lost. For OA 4, SUM 11, and SUM 42, the applications were withdrawn by consent after the Philippines proceedings were discontinued. The court therefore had to decide which party should bear costs in circumstances where there was no final adjudication on the merits of OA 4 and where the interim injunction had been granted but the underlying proceedings were later withdrawn.
The second legal issue concerned the quantum of costs claimed. Even where a party is entitled to costs, the SICC Rules require that costs be assessed with reference to proportionality and reasonableness. The court had to evaluate whether the costs claimed by PIMD were reasonable in all the circumstances, including the complexity of the case, novelty of questions, the skill and specialised knowledge required, time and labour expended, urgency and importance, and the parties’ conduct.
A further issue arose from the nature of the applications themselves. SUM 27 was a service challenge. The court had to consider whether costs incurred in relation to arbitration and foreign-law matters were reasonably necessary for the service application, and whether the involvement of multiple law firms and foreign counsel resulted in duplication or unnecessary expense.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by restating the governing principles. Under Order 22 Rule 3(1) of the SICC Rules, a successful party is entitled to costs, and the quantum generally reflects costs incurred, subject to proportionality and reasonableness. The court also cited Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries [2023] 1 SLR 96 as authority for the approach to costs assessment. The court noted that the sums at stake were in excess of US$142 million, which reduced the likelihood that any claimed costs were disproportionate merely because of their size. Nonetheless, the court emphasised that reasonableness still had to be assessed in detail.
For SUM 27, PIMD claimed costs totalling S$266,992.33. Udenna argued that the amount was unreasonable and should be reduced to S$100,000. The court addressed Udenna’s submissions in stages. It accepted that the issues in SUM 27 were complex and novel, particularly because Singapore had only recently acceded to the Hague Service Convention, and no Singapore court had previously decided the effect of a certificate under that Convention. The court agreed that this would have required extensive research into other jurisdictions’ case law and commentary, and it treated this as a legitimate driver of cost.
The court also accepted that foreign-law issues were put into issue by Udenna in SUM 27, including whether service was valid under Philippine law. That required engagement of Philippine counsel to advise on foreign-law matters. The court therefore found it reasonable that PIMD’s legal team had to liaise with Philippine counsel and incorporate those points into the wider case. The court further accepted that Udenna’s case was largely unsubstantiated and based on a simple assertion that service was invalid because it was served on an individual without authority to accept service at an address that was not the principal address. The court contrasted this with the costs PIMD incurred to conduct further investigations, including engaging a business intelligence and investigations firm (“JS Held”). The court noted that JS Held’s findings were relied upon by PIMD and by the court in dismissing SUM 27.
However, the court then scrutinised specific cost items. Udenna challenged, among other things, the legal fees of Herbert Smith Freehills (“HSF”), the firm representing Udenna in the underlying arbitration. PIMD argued that HSF’s involvement was necessary for knowledge and familiarity with the facts and the Philippine proceedings. Udenna responded that most of the HSF team were not qualified to practise Singapore law and none was qualified to practise Philippine law, and that SUM 27 was confined to Singapore civil procedure and the factual circumstances of service, making arbitration considerations irrelevant. The court agreed that some involvement by HSF was plainly reasonable and necessary, but it concluded that the extent of HSF’s involvement went beyond what was reasonably necessary and duplicated work done by PIMD’s Singapore counsel, Prolegis LLC. The court gave examples of duplication, including reviewing witness statements and taking instructions for preparation of evidence of named individuals. Exercising discretion, the court reduced the HSF-related costs by S$20,000.
The court also addressed the JS Held fees. Udenna submitted that JS Held’s fees should be reduced by 50%, but the provided extract truncates the remainder of the analysis. Nonetheless, the court’s approach is clear: it was willing to allow costs for investigative work where it was genuinely necessary to rebut the service challenge, but it would not automatically accept the full quantum claimed where there was insufficient justification for the amount or where the work appeared excessive relative to the issues actually in dispute.
Although the extract does not reproduce the full reasoning for OA 4, SUM 11, and SUM 42, the court’s framing indicates that it would apply the same reasonableness framework and consider the procedural posture. The court noted that PIMD succeeded in resisting SUM 27 and that the parties agreed on costs allocation for that application. For OA 4 and its related summonses, the court had to decide costs where the applications were withdrawn by consent after the Philippines proceedings were discontinued. In such a scenario, the court would typically examine who initiated the applications, what interim relief was granted (notably the interim anti-suit injunction under ORC 14), and whether the withdrawal was attributable to the successful party’s efforts or to external developments. The parties’ competing positions were that PIMD should bear costs because it brought and discontinued OA 4, while PIMD argued that Udenna should bear costs because PIMD was the successful party in OA 4, SUM 11, and SUM 42.
What Was the Outcome?
The court’s outcome, as reflected in the extract, is that Udenna was ordered to bear costs for SUM 27 because it was the losing party and the parties agreed on that point. The court also adjusted the quantum by reducing at least part of PIMD’s claimed costs, including a reduction of S$20,000 relating to HSF’s fees due to duplication beyond what was reasonably necessary.
For OA 4, SUM 11, and SUM 42, the court was required to determine costs allocation in circumstances where the applications were withdrawn by consent after the Philippines proceedings were discontinued. The extract indicates that the court would decide this issue notwithstanding the absence of a final merits determination, applying the SICC Rules’ proportionality and reasonableness principles and considering the procedural history and interim relief granted.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This costs decision is practically significant for arbitration-support litigation in Singapore, particularly where service challenges and anti-suit injunction applications arise in parallel with foreign proceedings. The court’s analysis demonstrates that even in high-value disputes, costs will be scrutinised for reasonableness and for duplication. Practitioners should not assume that the complexity or value of the underlying arbitration automatically justifies every cost item incurred in interlocutory proceedings.
Substantively, the judgment is a reminder that costs assessments are issue-specific. SUM 27 was a service challenge, and the court treated that as a limiting factor when evaluating whether arbitration-related counsel involvement was necessary. Where a party engages multiple counsel or foreign-law specialists, the court will look for a cogent explanation tying the work to the actual issues in dispute, and it may reduce costs where the involvement appears to overlap with work already performed by the Singapore legal team.
For lawyers, the case also illustrates how courts treat novelty and foreign-law complexity as legitimate cost drivers. The court accepted that the effect of a Hague Service Convention certificate had not previously been decided in Singapore and that foreign-law issues required Philippine counsel. This provides useful guidance for future litigants: where foreign-law research and specialist advice are genuinely required, those costs are more likely to be allowed, but the scope must remain proportionate to the procedural question being litigated.
Legislation Referenced
- International Arbitration Act 1994 (including sections 8 and 19, as referenced in the originating applications)
- UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (Articles 6 and 34, as set out and modified in the First Schedule to the International Arbitration Act)
- Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 (Order 22 Rule 3(1); Order 23 Rule 10)
Cases Cited
- Udenna Corp v Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd [2025] 1 SLR 19
- Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries [2023] 1 SLR 96
- Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd v P-H-O-E-N-I-X Petroleum Philippines, Inc (also known as Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, Inc) and another [2025] 3 SLR 1
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHCI 6 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.