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

Q: Which legislation does [2024] SGHC(I) 26 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] SGHC(I) 26 Singapore International Commercial Court 6 September 2024 • SIC/OA 23/2023 ( SIC/SUM 21/2024 ) |SIC/OA 1/2024 • 8 min read

3 cases cited Cited by 3 cases

Key facts

Court	Singapore International Commercial Court
Decided	6 September 2024
Judge	Sir Henry Bernard Eder
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Counsel	Prolegis LLC, Rev Law LLC, Chan Kit Munn Claudia, Charlene Wee Swee Ting, Daniel Chia Hsiung Wen, Ker Yanguang (Ke Yanguang), Liew Yik Wee, Ng Tse Jun Russell, Wong Wan Chee

Source: [2024] SGHC(I) 26, Singapore International Commercial Court, decided 6 September 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 25 June 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Costs

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Sir Henry Bernard Eder Delivered

Counsel (9)

Prolegis LLC Firm Rev Law LLC Firm Chan Kit Munn Claudia Counsel Claimant Charlene Wee Swee Ting Counsel Claimant Daniel Chia Hsiung Wen Counsel Claimant Ker Yanguang (Ke Yanguang) Counsel Claimant Liew Yik Wee Counsel Defendant Ng Tse Jun Russell Counsel Defendant Wong Wan Chee Counsel Defendant

Parties (3)

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

Case Significance

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 matter [2024] SGHC(I) 26 was decided by Sir Henry Bernard Eder IJ in the Singapore International Commercial Court, heard on 27 August 2024 with judgment delivered on 6 September 2024. It comprised Originating Application No 1 of 2024 and Originating Application No 23 of 2023 (Summons No 21 of 2024), brought respectively under s 8 and s 19 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 and Articles 6 and 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, together with Order 23 of the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021. The claimant was Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd, with P-H-O-E-N-I-X Petroleum Philippines, Inc and Udenna Corporation as defendants.

The judgment, on the catchword Civil Procedure — Costs, followed on from the judge's previous decision dated 28 June 2024 in the same matter, reported as [2024] SGHC(I) 19 and referred to as the GD. The claimant was represented by Chan Kit Munn Claudia, Charlene Wee Swee Ting, Daniel Chia Hsiung Wen and Ker Yanguang of Prolegis LLC, while the defendants were represented by Liew Yik Wee, Ng Tse Jun Russell and Wong Wan Chee of Rev Law LLC.

[2024] SGHC(I) 26 explained

Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte. Ltd. v P-H-O-E-N-I-X Petroleum Philippines, Inc. (a.k.a. Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, Inc.) ([2024] SGHC(I) 26) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Singapore International Commercial Court on 6 September 2024. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 3 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. 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] SGHC(I) 26 about?

Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte. Ltd. v P-H-O-E-N-I-X Petroleum Philippines, Inc. (a.k.a. Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, Inc.) ([2024] SGHC(I) 26) is a Singapore International Commercial Court decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Costs”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2024] SGHC(I) 26 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] SGHC(I) 26 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC(I) 19 and [2024] SGHC(I) 20. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

How influential is [2024] SGHC(I) 26?

Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC(I) 26 has been cited by 3 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE

6 September 2024

Case summary

Singapore International Commercial Court Originating Application No 1 of 2024, Originating Application No 23 of 2023 (Summons No 21 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) and another matter [2024] SGHC(I) 26

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

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

Outcome: The SICC orders costs of $319,000 to be paid by the defendant to the claimant.

Background

1. SIC/OA 1/2024 (“OA 1”) was the application by the claimant, Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd (“PIMD”), for various declarations as to the validity of the Final Award signed and dated 28 November 2023 (“Final Award”), a permanent anti-suit injunction, and a mandatory injunction to prevent the defendant, P-H-O-E-N-I-X Petroleum Philippines, Inc (also known as Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, Inc) (“Phoenix”), from pursuing proceedings in the Philippines seeking to declare the Final Award as void; SIC/SUM 21/2024 (“SUM 21”) was Phoenix's application filed in SIC/OA 23/2023 to set aside SIC/ORC 69/2023, which was the court's order allowing PIMD to enforce the Final Award against Phoenix and Udenna Corporation in Singapore.

2. At the conclusion of the hearing on 25 June 2024 and for the reasons set out in an earlier decision 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 matter [2024] SGHC(I) 19 (“GD”), Eder IJ found that PIMD succeeded in full in both OA 1 and SUM 21 and accordingly ordered Phoenix to pay PIMD its costs of and incidental to OA 1 and SUM 21.

Parties’ positions on costs

3. PIMD sought costs in the sum of $424,795.52 as its costs of OA 1 and SUM 21, comprising:

Description	Costs
Singapore counsel fees	290,878.78
Arbitration counsel fees	80,341.87
Expert fees – ACCRALAW	37,076.15
Disbursements	16,498.71
Total	424,795.52

4. Phoenix contended that the sum claimed by PIMD was neither proportionate nor reasonable. In summary, Phoenix submitted that a discount of approximately 41% ought to be applied to the costs sought by PIMD such that it was awarded $250,000 (all in) — an amount which Phoenix in fact proposed to pay on 16 July 2024 but which was rejected by PIMD.

Costs payable by Phoenix

5. Although reference to other cases in the SICC often provides a useful cross-check in at least certain circumstances, each case ultimately turns on its own facts: at [10(a)].

6. The court readily accepted the matters relied upon by PIMD which pointed strongly in favour of a significant costs award in its favour. When compared with the overall amount at stake and the issues involved, the court also readily accepted that the costs claimed could not be said to be disproportionate: at [10(b)] and [10(c)].

7. Nonetheless, it was still necessary to consider whether the costs incurred were reasonable having regard to all the circumstances: at [10(d)].

8. The court took a broad-brush approach in discounting PIMD’s costs by approximately 25%. The court did not accept that the costs claimed in the preparation of the bundles could be said to be excessive in all the circumstances. some of the work which was the subject of PIMD’s current claim for costs was possibly duplicative of the work done in relation to SIC/SUM 8/2024 (“SUM 8”), the main issues which the court had to address at the most recent hearing including the substantive merits of PIMD’s case were not issues which the court had to address in respect of SUM 8. While the disparity between PIMD’s costs and Phoenix’s costs was a potentially relevant factor to be taken into account in assessing costs, such disparity could be explained by PIMD counsel’s higher fees, PIMD’s role as claimant and duplication of work within PIMD’s counsel team: at [10(e)], [10(f)], [10(g)] and [10(h)].

9. The court awarded PIMD costs of $319,000 together with interest at the judgment rate from the date of this judgment until payment: at [11].

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.

What did Pertamina v Phoenix Petroleum [2024] SGHC(I) 26 deal with?

The Singapore International Commercial Court decision by Sir Henry Bernard Eder IJ, delivered 6 September 2024, addressed costs (Civil Procedure — Costs) following his earlier judgment of 28 June 2024 reported as [2024] SGHC(I) 19, across Originating Applications No 1 of 2024 and No 23 of 2023.

Which statutory provisions framed the Pertamina v Phoenix Petroleum proceedings ([2024] SGHC(I) 26)?

The applications were brought under sections 8 and 19 of the International Arbitration Act 1994, Articles 6 and 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, and Order 23 of the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021, before Sir Henry Bernard Eder IJ.