Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd: Amendment of Pleadings & Mareva Injunctions

Karaha Bodas Company LLC (KBC) appealed against the High Court's decision to set aside an Originating Summons (OS) and a Mareva injunction against Pertamina Energy Trading Limited (Petral) and Pertamina Energy Services Pte Ltd (PES). The Court of Appeal of Singapore, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Judith Prakash J, and Yong Pung How CJ, dismissed the appeals, finding that KBC lacked the necessary locus standi to seek declaratory relief regarding funds transferred between Petral and PES, and that the Mareva injunction was improperly obtained. The court held that KBC's claim was speculative and did not establish a real interest in the funds in question.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal dismissed KBC's appeal, holding that KBC lacked locus standi to seek declaratory relief and a Mareva injunction against Petral and PES.

1.7 Decision Date

11 October 2005

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Karaha Bodas Co LLC	Appellant	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Tan Kay Kheng of Wong Partnership Alvin Yeo of Wong Partnership Tan Hsiang Yue of Wong Partnership
Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Appeal Allowed	Won	Rajmohan of Haq and Selvam Anjali Iyer of Anjali Iyer and Associates
Pertamina Energy Services Pte Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Appeal Allowed	Won	Rajmohan of Haq and Selvam Anjali Iyer of Anjali Iyer and Associates

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Judith Prakash	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes
Chao Hick Tin	Judge of Appeal	No
Yong Pung How	Chief Justice	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Tan Kay Kheng	Wong Partnership
Alvin Yeo	Wong Partnership
Tan Hsiang Yue	Wong Partnership
Rajmohan	Haq and Selvam
Anjali Iyer	Anjali Iyer and Associates

4. Facts

KBC, a Cayman Islands company, contracted with Pertamina in 1994 for a geothermal project in Indonesia.
The contracts were terminated, and KBC commenced arbitration against Pertamina, winning an award of US$261m.
KBC registered the award in Hong Kong and initiated enforcement proceedings against Petral.
A Garnishee Order was served against Petral in Hong Kong in May 2002.
George Chan's evidence suggested US$36m was transferred from Hong Kong to Singapore to evade the Garnishee Order.
KBC obtained a worldwide Mareva injunction against Petral in Hong Kong in December 2004.
KBC filed an Originating Summons in Singapore seeking a declaration that PES held US$36m in trust for Petral.

5. Formal Citations

Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd and Another Appeal, CA 38/2005, 39/2005, [2005] SGCA 47

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1994-01-01	Contracts made between KBC and Pertamina
2000-12-18	Arbitration award obtained by KBC against Pertamina
2002-03-15	Award registered in Hong Kong
2002-05-24	Garnishee Order served against Petral
2004-12-21	Worldwide Mareva injunction order obtained against Petral in Hong Kong
2004-12-22	Originating Summons filed in Singapore and Mareva injunction obtained against Petral and PES
2005-03-14	High Court set aside OS and discharged Mareva injunctions
2005-08-24	KBC's appeals heard and dismissed
2005-10-12	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Amendment of Pleadings
- Outcome: The court held that there was no sufficient overlap between the facts supporting the declaration initially sought and those supporting a cause of action based on conspiracy.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Addition of new cause of action
  - Overlap of facts between existing and new claims
Mareva Injunctions
- Outcome: The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant a Mareva injunction to assist proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction and that KBC did not have an accrued right of action against PES.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Jurisdiction over foreign defendant
  - Accrued right of action
  - Free-standing Mareva relief
Declaratory Relief
- Outcome: The court held that KBC lacked locus standi to seek a declaration regarding the rights of two other parties.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Requirements for grant of declaratory relief
  - Locus standi
  - Real controversy

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that PES holds US$36,236,581.65 in trust for Petral
Order that PES repay US$36,236,581.65 to Petral in Hong Kong

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Injunctions

11. Industries

Energy

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Siskina v Distos Compania Naviera SA	House of Lords	Yes	[1979] AC 210	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that a Mareva injunction could be granted only when the plaintiff had a substantive claim over which the court had jurisdiction.
Mercedes Benz AG v Leiduck	Privy Council	Yes	[1996] AC 284	Hong Kong	Affirmed the principle in The Siskina regarding the lack of in personam jurisdiction over a foreign defendant where no substantive claim was made against him.
Teo Siew Har v Lee Kuan Yew	High Court	Yes	[1999] 4 SLR 560	Singapore	Accepted The Siskina as good law.
Guaranty Trust Company of New York v Hannay & Company	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1915] 2 KB 536	United Kingdom	Cited for the proposition that a cause of action was not required in the context of declaratory orders because of the existence of Order 15 rule 16, but distinguished because the plaintiff must still have an interest in the subject matter.
Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers	House of Lords	Yes	[1978] AC 435	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that declaratory relief cannot be granted unless the plaintiff asserts a legal right which is denied or threatened.
Salijah bte Ab Lateh v Mohd Irwan Abdullah	High Court	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR 63	Singapore	Cited for the requirements that must be satisfied before the court grants declaratory relief, including locus standi.
Salijah bte Ab Lateh v Mohd Irwan Abdullah	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 2 SLR 201	Singapore	Cited for the requirements that must be satisfied before the court grants declaratory relief, including locus standi.
Newport Association Football Club Ltd v Football Association of Wales Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[1995] 2 All ER 87	Wales	Cited in support of the argument that a cause of action is not a precondition for a declaration.
In re S (Hospital Patient: Court’s Jurisdiction)	High Court	Yes	[1995] Fam 26	United Kingdom	Cited in support of the argument that a cause of action is not a precondition for a declaration.
In re S (Hospital Patient: Court’s Jurisdiction)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] Fam 1	United Kingdom	Cited in support of the argument that a cause of action is not a precondition for a declaration.
Meadows Indemnity Co Ltd v Insurance Corporation of Ireland plc and International Commercial Bank plc	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 298	United Kingdom	Cited as an authority that a plaintiff should not be able to commence proceedings seeking a declaration that A owed money to B, when the plaintiff was neither A nor B.
British and Malayan Trustees Ltd v Sindo Realty Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1998] 2 SLR 495	Singapore	Approved the holding in Meadows Indemnity Co Ltd v Insurance Corporation of Ireland plc and International Commercial Bank plc.
Lim Yong Swan v Lim Jee Tee	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] 1 SLR 500	Singapore	Cited for the test to be applied in determining whether Order 20 rule 5(5) had been satisfied, which is whether there was a sufficient overlap between the facts supporting the existing claim and those supporting the new claim.
Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Thakur Shipping Co Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 439	Bermuda	Cited for the principle that in order to apply for Mareva relief, the plaintiff must possess an accrued right of action against the defendant at the time of the application.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Order 20 r 5(5) Rules of Court	Singapore
Order 11 Rules of Court	Singapore
Order 15 r 16 of the Rules of Court	Singapore
Order 18 r 19(1)(a) of the Rules	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Mareva injunction
Originating Summons
Locus standi
Garnishee Order
Declaratory relief
Cause of action
Service out of jurisdiction
In personam jurisdiction
Accrued right of action

15.2 Keywords

Mareva injunction
declaratory relief
locus standi
Singapore
Pertamina
KBC
jurisdiction

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Jurisdiction	90
Mareva Injunctions	80
Civil Practice	75
Judgments and Orders	60

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Jurisdiction
Injunctions
Declaratory Judgments