Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd vs Udenna Corporation

6 Mar 2025Court Report

Singapore International Commercial Court rules on costs in a complex arbitration-related case involving Pertamina and Udenna

Introduction

The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) delivered a judgment concerning the allocation of costs in a complex arbitration-related dispute between Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd (PIMD) and Udenna Corporation. The case involved multiple applications and procedural intricacies, with the court ultimately deciding on the costs to be borne by the parties.

Background

The case stemmed from a series of applications related to an international arbitration award. Udenna sought to set aside the service of originating papers, while PIMD pursued orders to prevent Udenna from challenging the arbitration award in the Philippines. The proceedings involved multiple applications, including the withdrawal of certain actions and the granting of interim anti-suit injunctions.

Key Applications

Udenna's application to set aside the service of originating papers (SUM 27) was dismissed, and PIMD was awarded costs for successfully resisting this application. In a separate application (OA 4), PIMD sought to restrain Udenna from pursuing legal actions in the Philippines that challenged the arbitration award. The court granted an interim anti-suit injunction in favour of PIMD, but the proceedings were later withdrawn following the resolution of related matters in the Philippines.

Costs Determination

The court applied established principles to determine the costs, considering factors such as the complexity of the case, the amounts at stake, and the conduct of the parties. PIMD claimed significant costs for the applications, which Udenna contested as excessive. The court assessed the reasonableness of the claimed costs, taking into account the need for specialised legal expertise and the involvement of foreign counsel.

Judgment on Costs

In its judgment, the court awarded PIMD costs for SUM 27, albeit with a reduction due to the involvement of their arbitration counsel, which was deemed excessive. For OA 4 and related applications, the court recognised PIMD's entitlement to costs, as the withdrawal of the Philippines proceedings effectively rendered the applications moot. However, the court reduced the claimed costs for these applications, acknowledging some overlap with previous proceedings.

Conclusion

The court's decision underscored the importance of proportionality and reasonableness in awarding costs, particularly in complex international arbitration cases. The judgment provided clarity on the allocation of costs in multi-jurisdictional disputes, highlighting the need for careful consideration of the parties' conduct and the procedural history of the case.