Pertamina v P-H-O-E-N-I-X: Anti-Suit Injunction & Arbitration Agreement Dispute
In Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd v P-H-O-E-N-I-X Petroleum Philippines, Inc, the Singapore International Commercial Court addressed applications related to an arbitration award. PIMD sought to enforce an award against Phoenix, while Phoenix challenged the validity of the arbitration agreement and pursued actions in the Philippines. The court dismissed Phoenix's applications, upholding an anti-suit injunction preventing Phoenix from pursuing the Philippines action, and ordered PIMD to pay costs related to SUM 10.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Singapore International Commercial Court1.2 Outcome
Applications in Summons 8 dismissed; orders in ORC 5 to stand. No order made regarding valid service of OA 1. PIMD to pay Phoenix costs for SUM 10.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court grants anti-suit injunction against P-H-O-E-N-I-X, restraining it from pursuing Philippines action challenging arbitration award. Dispute centers on arbitration agreement validity.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd | Claimant | Corporation | Applications in Summons 8 dismissed; orders in ORC 5 to stand | Won | |
| P-H-O-E-N-I-X Petroleum Philippines, Inc | Defendant | Corporation | Applications in Summons 8 dismissed; orders in ORC 5 to stand | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sir Henry Bernard Eder | International Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- PIMD and Phoenix entered into Sale Contracts for petroleum products in May and June 2021.
- A dispute arose, and PIMD commenced arbitration against Phoenix under SIAC rules.
- Phoenix objected to the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing there was no binding arbitration agreement.
- The Tribunal proceeded without Phoenix's participation and issued an award in favor of PIMD.
- Phoenix commenced proceedings in the Philippines seeking a declaration that the arbitration and award were void.
- PIMD obtained an anti-suit injunction from the Singapore court restraining Phoenix from pursuing the Philippines action.
- Phoenix continued to pursue the Philippines action despite the anti-suit injunction.
5. Formal Citations
- Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd v P-H-O-E-N-I-X Petroleum Philippines, Inc, , [2024] SGHC(I) 13
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Sale Contracts formed by exchange of emails between PIMD and Phoenix for supply of petroleum products. | |
| Arbitration commenced under SIAC in SIAC Case No. ARB No. 084 of 2022. | |
| Final Award signed and dated. | |
| SIAC registered and issued the Award in PIMD’s favour; Phoenix received the Award via email. | |
| Phoenix commenced proceedings in the Philippines Court. | |
| PIMD filed an originating application without notice in SIC/OA 23/2023 to register and enforce the Award. | |
| OA 23 granted by way of SIC/ORC 69/2023. | |
| PIMD filed Model Forms for service of OA 23 and ORC 69 out of Singapore pursuant to the Hague Convention. | |
| Philippines Court denied the TRO and directed the Branch Clerk of Court to issue the Summons in the Philippines Action. | |
| Philippines Court issued the Summons requiring PIMD to file an Answer to the Complaint. | |
| Philippines Court fixed a hearing for the WPI on 31 January 2024; Phoenix purported to serve the Complaint on PIMD by email; PIMD filed SIC/OA 1/2024 against Phoenix; PIMD also filed SIC/SUM 2/2024 against Phoenix for an interim anti-suit injunction. | |
| SUM 2 heard on an ex parte basis; court made orders for an ASI by way of SIC/ORC 5/2024. | |
| PIMD filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in the Philippines Action. | |
| Phoenix attended a hearing before the Philippines Court. | |
| Phoenix filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. | |
| Philippines Court directed the parties to file their respective memoranda on the application for the WPI and Motion to Dismiss. | |
| Phoenix filed SIC/SUM 8/2024. | |
| Phoenix filed a Memorandum in the Philippines Action on PIMD’s Motion to Dismiss and its own WPI application. | |
| Phoenix filed SIC/SUM 10/2024. | |
| Philippines Court issued an order confirming its jurisdiction and denying the Motion to Dismiss by PIMD, granting Phoenix the WPI. | |
| PIMD filed a Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals of the Philippines. | |
| Court heard oral submissions by counsel on behalf of the parties at a hearing. | |
| Judgment Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Arbitration Agreement
- Outcome: The court upheld the anti-suit injunction, effectively preventing Phoenix from pursuing the Philippines action, reinforcing the arbitration agreement.
- Category: Substantive
- Jurisdiction of SICC to grant permanent anti-suit injunction
- Outcome: The court did not decide on this issue, as PIMD did not seek a permanent injunction at this stage.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Contempt of Court
- Outcome: The court found that Phoenix's actions in the Philippines Action constituted a breach of ORC 5 and contempt of court, but did not refuse to hear Phoenix's submissions.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Anti-suit injunction
- Declaration that proceedings have not been validly served
- Dismissal of OA 1
- Stay of proceedings in OA 1
- Setting aside of injunction granted to PIMD
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Petroleum
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hadkinson v Hadkinson | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1952] P 285 | England and Wales | Cited for the Hadkinson principle, which allows the court to refuse to hear a party in contempt. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 862 | Singapore | Cited as authority that the court has discretion to refuse to hear a party in contempt under the Hadkinson principle. |
| R1 International Pte Ltd v Lonstroff AG | High Court | No | [2014] 3 SLR 166 | Singapore | Cited to support the argument that the power to grant permanent anti-suit injunctions to assist arbitration is not derived from s 12A of the IAA. |
| PT Gunung Madu Plantations v Muhammad Jimmy Goh Mashun | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 1420 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the lack of service of the originating process is not fatal to the grant of interim orders. |
| Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Ltd and others v Kingdom of Lesotho | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 263 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that recourse to a court against an arbitral award may only be made by an application for setting aside. |
| Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc and another v Global Gaming Philippines LLC and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 1045 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is a strict three-month limit in Art 34(2) of the Model Law for a party to set aside an award, which is absolute even in cases of fraud. |
| AJU v AJT | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 739 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Singapore law recognizes that the findings in the Award are final and binding unless set aside. |
| Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 732 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court can and generally will grant appropriate injunctive relief to protect an award to restrain breaches of an arbitration agreement. |
| Donohue v Armco Inc | House of Lords | Yes | [2002] 1 All ER 749 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that anti-suit relief would ordinarily be granted where breach of an arbitration agreement is shown, unless there are strong reasons not to. |
| Morgan Stanley Asia (Singapore) Pte v Hong Leong Finance Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 409 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that anti-suit relief would ordinarily be granted where breach of an arbitration agreement is shown, unless there are strong reasons not to. |
| Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd v Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 56 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there are at least two implied negative obligations arising from an agreement to arbitrate, including a negative obligation not to commence court proceedings and not to attack an arbitral award outside the seat of arbitration. |
| WSG Nimbus Pte Ltd v Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 1088 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a purely defensive measure to "parry a blow" would not be deemed to be a step in the proceeding which could be construed as a submission to jurisdiction. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 23 of the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 |
| O 2 r 3(5)(b) of the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 |
| O 5 r 1(1) of SICC Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Section 8 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| International Arbitration Act 1994 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Anti-suit injunction
- Arbitration agreement
- SIAC
- Jurisdiction
- Contempt of court
- Philippines Action
- Motion to Dismiss
- Writ of Preliminary Injunction
- Hague Convention
- Service of process
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- anti-suit injunction
- Singapore International Commercial Court
- jurisdiction
- contempt of court
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Civil Procedure
- Injunctions