MOORTHY SELVARAJ (as one of the beneficiaries of the estate of KARUPAYA SELVARAJ, Deceased) v. KARUPAYEE AMMAL (as the administratrix and one of the beneficiaries of the estate of KARUPAYASELVARAJ, Deceased) AND OTHERS

MOORTHY SELVARAJ (as one of the beneficiaries of the estate of KARUPAYA SELVARAJ, Deceased) v. KARUPAYEE AMMAL (as the administratrix and one of the beneficiaries of the estate of KARUPAYASELVARAJ, Deceased) AND OTHERS

The plaintiff contributed to delays in the administration and pursued two principal objectives (enforcing the DFA and taking over administration) on which he failed; he was an unconvincing witness and there was no basis to assume he would have succeeded had the 1st defendant not died. Consequently the plaintiff must pay the 1st, 2nd and 5th defendants' costs incurred in the action (with the existing certificate for two counsel preserved for the 5th defendant's costs but not extended to the 1st defendant), and the plaintiff's summons to vary the costs order is dismissed with the plaintiff ordered to pay costs of the variation summonses forthwith, taxed if not agreed.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 3628
Parties
Plaintiff (as One of the Beneficiaries of the Estate of Karupaya Selvaraj, Deceased): Moorthy Selvaraj; 1st Defendant (as the Administratrix and One of the Beneficiaries of the Estate of Karupaya Selvaraj, Deceased): Karupayee Ammal; 2nd Defendant (as the Co Administrator of the Estate of Selvam Selvaraj, Deceased and One of the Beneficiaries of the Estate of Karupaya Selvaraj, Deceased): Fan Rong Li; 3rd Defendant (as the Co Administrator of the Estate of Selvam Selvaraj, Deceased and One of the Beneficiaries of the Estate of Karupaya Selvaraj, Deceased): Yau Paul; 4th Defendant (as One of the Beneficiaries of the Estate of Karupaya Selvaraj, Deceased): Mohan Selvaraj; 5th Defendant (as One of the Beneficiaries of the Estate of Karupaya Selvaraj, Deceased): Shivkumar Selvaraj
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 December 2024
Case Number
HCA413/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Estate Administration/probate / Post Judgment Costs Application (variation of Costs Order)
Outcome
Application to vary costs order refused in part; costs order amended to require plaintiff to pay costs of the 1st, 2nd and 5th defendants; plaintiff's summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Administratrix Removal, Estate Accounting, Variation of Costs Order, Deceased Estate Administration
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Probate/estate Administration Costs Costs Orders Administratrix Removal Estate Accounting Variation of Costs Order Deceased Estate Administration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moorthy Selvaraj

Plaintiff (as One of the Beneficiaries of the Estate of Karupaya Selvaraj, Deceased)

Karupayee Ammal

1st Defendant (as the Administratrix and One of the Beneficiaries of the Estate of Karupaya Selvaraj, Deceased)

Fan Rong Li

2nd Defendant (as the Co Administrator of the Estate of Selvam Selvaraj, Deceased and One of the Beneficiaries of the Estate of Karupaya Selvaraj, Deceased)

Yau Paul

3rd Defendant (as the Co Administrator of the Estate of Selvam Selvaraj, Deceased and One of the Beneficiaries of the Estate of Karupaya Selvaraj, Deceased)

Mohan Selvaraj

4th Defendant (as One of the Beneficiaries of the Estate of Karupaya Selvaraj, Deceased)

Shivkumar Selvaraj

5th Defendant (as One of the Beneficiaries of the Estate of Karupaya Selvaraj, Deceased)

Procedural Posture

Civil Estate Administration/probate / Post Judgment Costs Application (variation of Costs Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should recover costs from the estate for work up to 12 October 2022
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff should pay the 1st, 2nd and 5th defendants' costs of the action
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd defendant should be deprived of her costs despite being unsuccessful in her appointment

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff contributed to delays in the administration and pursued two principal objectives (enforcing the DFA and taking over administration) on which he failed; he was an unconvincing witness and there was no basis to assume he would have succeeded had the 1st defendant not died. Consequently the plaintiff must pay the 1st, 2nd and 5th defendants' costs incurred in the action (with the existing certificate for two counsel preserved for the 5th defendant's costs but not extended to the 1st defendant), and the plaintiff's summons to vary the costs order is dismissed with the plaintiff ordered to pay costs of the variation summonses forthwith, taxed if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Application to vary costs order refused in part; costs order amended to require plaintiff to pay costs of the 1st, 2nd and 5th defendants; plaintiff's summons dismissed

Orders

  • The Plaintiff shall pay the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants' costs of the Action, such costs to be taxed if not agreed
  • The Plaintiff's summons filed on 16 February 2024 is dismissed