Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte. Ltd. v Udenna Corporation

Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd (PIMD) was seeking to enforce a Final Award dated 28 November 2023, made in a Singapore International Arbitration Centre arbitration, against Udenna Corporation; the sums at stake were in excess of US$142 million. In SIC/OA 23/2023, Udenna applied by SUM 27 to set aside service of the originating papers; the Singapore International Commercial Court dismissed that application, and the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal.

After Udenna filed a Comment in proceedings in the Philippines seeking to have the award declared void and to stop its enforcement, PIMD brought SIC/OA 4/2024 for an anti-suit injunction and obtained an interim injunction ex parte in SUM 11. Udenna's SUM 42, challenging service in OA 4, was stayed. Once the Philippines proceedings were discontinued, OA 4 and SUM 42 were withdrawn by consent, leaving costs for the court. PIMD claimed S$266,992.33 for SUM 27 and S$107,996.43 for the OA 4 matters; Udenna disputed both and claimed its own costs of OA 4. The court decided on written submissions.

1. Whether PIMD's costs for SUM 27 were reasonable, including fees of its arbitration lawyers and investigators.
2. Which party should bear the costs of OA 4, SUM 11 and SUM 42 after OA 4 was withdrawn.
3. What amount was reasonable for those applications.

Given the sums involved, no claim was disproportionate, so the question was reasonableness. SUM 27 raised a novel question on the effect of a certificate under the Hague Service Convention and issues of Philippine law, and PIMD had to commission investigations to answer Udenna's assertions about service. Higher costs than Udenna's own were therefore unsurprising. The court cut S$20,000 because the arbitration lawyers' involvement went beyond what was needed and duplicated some work, but refused to reduce the investigators' fees for an error in their first report, which was not egregious and arose from investigations made necessary by Udenna's obstructive stance.

On OA 4, the court accepted that relief would likely have been cut down, but bringing it was entirely reasonable until the Philippine proceedings ended, citing Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak dan Gas Bumi Negara [2006] SGHC 195 on costs after withdrawal. PIMD won SUM 11, and SUM 42 would have failed like SUM 27. Some of Udenna's points on overlap with earlier anti-suit work and on hours claimed had force, so the amount was reduced.

The court ordered Udenna to pay PIMD's costs, assessed and fixed at S$321,992.33: S$246,992.33 for SUM 27 and S$75,000 for OA 4, SUM 11 and SUM 42. Udenna's own claim for the costs of OA 4 was rejected.