How much in costs did PIMD claim in Pertamina v Phoenix Petroleum [2024] SGHC(I) 20?

Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd claimed costs of $243,469.35, comprising $208,275.28 in legal costs incurred by its Singapore counsel and $26,813.66 in legal costs incurred by its arbitration counsel, in respect of the dismissed Summons No 8 of 2024.

What did the costs judgment in Pertamina v Phoenix Petroleum [2024] SGHC(I) 20 address?

Delivered by Bernard Eder IJ on 28 June 2024, the judgment dealt only with the quantum of costs for Summons No 8 of 2024. Phoenix accepted that PIMD, as the successful party, was in principle entitled to a costs order, so only the amount remained in dispute.

[2024] SGHC(I) 20 — Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte. Ltd. v P-H-O-E-N-I-X Petroleum Philippines, Inc. (a.k.a. Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, Inc.)

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE

28 June 2024

Case summary

Singapore International Commercial Court Originating Application No 1 of 2024

(Summons No 8 of 2024)

Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd v P-H-O-E-N-I-X Petroleum Philippines, Inc. (also known as Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, Inc) [2024] SGHC(I) 20

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision of the Singapore International Commercial Court (delivered by Bernard Eder IJ):

Outcome: The SICC orders costs of $205,880.41 to be paid by the defendant to the claimant in relation to a summons.

Background

1. SIC/SUM 8/2024 (“SUM 8”) was an application by the defendant (“Phoenix”) seeking, inter alia, the following orders: (a) a declaration that the proceedings in SIC/OA 1/2024 (“OA 1”)had not been validly served on Phoenix, (b) that the court decline to exercise jurisdiction to hear OA 1 and accordingly dismiss OA 1, (c) in the alternative to (b), that all proceedings in OA 1 be stayed pending the final determination of proceedings before the Philippines courts, and (d) that the injunction granted to the claimant (“PIMD”) against Phoenix pursuant to SIC/SUM 2/2024, vide SIC/ORC 5/2024, be set aside.

2. The Court dismissed SUM 8, with its reasons set out in its grounds of decision dated 26 April 2024. The parties then served written submissions dealing with the question of costs which the parties had been unable to agree. The only dispute between the parties pertained to the quantum of costs.

3. PIMD claimed costs of $243,469.35 broken down as follows: (a) $208,275.28 in legal costs incurred by PIMD's Singapore counsel ("Singapore counsel costs"); (b) $26,813.66 in legal costs incurred by PIMD's arbitration counsel ("arbitration counsel costs"); (c) $6,416.16 in fees to engage ACCRALAW on matters of Philippines law; and (d) $1,964.25 in disbursements (such as filing fees, translation fees, courier charges, and overtime transport expenses).

4. Phoenix did not contest sums claimed in (c) and (d) but submitted that a discount of 50 per cent ought to be applied to the costs claimed in (a) and (b).

The court’s decision

Singapore counsel costs

5. The Court allowed the full amount of costs claimed by PIMD under this head less a small discount to take account of potential duplication of work and at least some of the objections raised by Phoenix, ie, $180,000: at [10].

6. First, the amount at stake was considerable: at [9(a)].

7. Second, a number of the points raised by Phoenix raised potentially difficult factual and legal issues. This expanded the issues that PIMD had to deal with. The Court accepted that it was important that PIMD’s Singapore counsel put themselves in a position to explain properly the nature and course of the proceedings initiated by Phoenix in the Philippines and to correct any misimpressions: at [9(b)].

8. Third, the steps taken by Phoenix in the Philippines were in breach of the orders of this Court amounting to contempt of court: at [9(c)].

9. Fourth, the main focus of Phoenix’s case was untenable. Phoenix also raised a number of other points which were equally misconceived: at [9(d)].

10. Considering these factors in the round, the Court granted costs of $180,000: at [9(e)] and [10].

Arbitration counsel costs

11. The Court granted costs of $17,500 in relation to this head as it saw some force in Phoenix’s arguments that (a) the total time spent in drafting the third witness statement of Mohammad Fitrawan Nur was excessive and (b) the time spent and costs incurred for two lawyers of PIMD’s arbitration team to attend the hearing was neither proportionate nor reasonable: at [11].

Summary

12. Adding the sums which were uncontested by Phoenix, the Court ordered Phoenix to pay PIMD costs of $205,880.41 forthwith together with interest at the Judgment rate until payment: at [12].

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.

Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte. Ltd. v P-H-O-E-N-I-X Petroleum Philippines, Inc. (a.k.a. Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, Inc.)

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (8)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

Summary

How much in costs did PIMD claim in Pertamina v Phoenix Petroleum [2024] SGHC(I) 20?

What did the costs judgment in Pertamina v Phoenix Petroleum [2024] SGHC(I) 20 address?

Cited By (1)

Referenced in

Legal concepts & references

Judgment