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

Q: Which legislation does [2024] SGCA(I) 9 consider?

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

[2024] SGCA(I) 9 Court of Appeal (International) 27 November 2024 CA/OAS 3/2024 14 min read

6 cases cited

Key facts

Court	Court of Appeal (International)
Decided	27 November 2024
Judges	David Neuberger, Steven Chong
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Counsel	Prolegis LLC, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Chan Kit Munn Claudia, Charlene Wee Swee Ting, Daniel Chia Hsiung Wen, Ho Linming, Jasmine Thng Khai Fang, Ker Yanguang, Ng Kim Beng, Sim Daryl Larry

Source: [2024] SGCA(I) 9, Court of Appeal (International), decided 27 November 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Service — Setting aside

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (2)

David Neuberger Coram Steven Chong Delivered

Counsel (10)

Prolegis LLC Firm Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Firm Chan Kit Munn Claudia Counsel Respondent Charlene Wee Swee Ting Counsel Respondent Daniel Chia Hsiung Wen Counsel Respondent Ho Linming Counsel Applicant Jasmine Thng Khai Fang Counsel Applicant Ker Yanguang Counsel Respondent Ng Kim Beng Counsel Applicant Sim Daryl Larry Counsel Applicant

Parties (2)

Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte. Ltd. Respondent Udenna Corporation Applicant

Case Significance

Udenna Corp v Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd [2024] SGCA(I) 9 is a reserved judgment of the Court of Appeal, coram Steven Chong JCA and David Neuberger IJ, heard on 25 October 2024 and delivered on 27 November 2024 in Originating Application No 3 of 2024. The judgment was delivered by Steven Chong JCA. The application, CA/OAS 3/2024, was by Udenna Corporation for permission to appeal against the decision below in SIC/SUM 27/2024, which had dismissed Udenna's application to set aside the attempted service in the Philippines of the originating process in SIC/OA 23/2023. The judge below found that OA 23 was validly served, as evidenced by a "Sheriff's Return of Service of Judicial Documents to Udenna Corporation" issued by Sheriff IV. The judgment concerned civil procedure on service and setting aside, referenced s 19 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 and Order 23, Rule 10 of the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021, and cited 6 authorities. Udenna was represented by Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP and Pertamina by Prolegis LLC.

[2024] SGCA(I) 9 explained

Udenna Corporation v Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte. Ltd. ([2024] SGCA(I) 9) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal (International) on 27 November 2024. It is categorised under 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 [2024] SGCA(I) 9 about?

Udenna Corporation v Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte. Ltd. ([2024] SGCA(I) 9) is a Court of Appeal (International) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Service — Setting aside”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2024] SGCA(I) 9 consider?

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

What earlier Singapore cases does [2024] SGCA(I) 9 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC(I) 27. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

Udenna Corporation applied for permission to appeal against a judge's dismissal of its application to set aside the attempted service in the Philippines of the originating process in proceedings by Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd to recognise and enforce a SIAC arbitral award against Udenna as a third-party guarantor. Udenna contended that the judge had made errors of fact regarding the evidence of service and the address used. The Court of Appeal rejected those contentions, dismissed the application for permission to appeal, and ordered costs of USD 5,000 against Udenna.

What was Udenna Corp v Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution [2024] SGCA(I) 9 about?

Udenna Corp v Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd [2024] SGCA(I) 9 was an application by Udenna Corporation, before Steven Chong JCA and David Neuberger IJ, for permission to appeal the dismissal of its application to set aside the attempted service of originating process on it in the Philippines.

How was service on Udenna in the Philippines established in [2024] SGCA(I) 9?

In Udenna Corp v Pertamina [2024] SGCA(I) 9, the judge below found that OA 23/2023 was validly served on Udenna in the Philippines, as evidenced by a certificate titled "Sheriff's Return of Service of Judicial Documents to Udenna Corporation" issued by Sheriff IV.