SHALINI NARESH KUMAR BASANT v. STEVENSEC SERVICES LTD

SHALINI NARESH KUMAR BASANT v. STEVENSEC SERVICES LTD

Applicant acted unreasonably in commencing and persisting with an originating summons despite clear serious factual disputes and inter partes warnings; conversion to writ was appropriate and on these facts costs of the Conversion Application and the Costs Application must be borne personally by the Applicant and assessed on an indemnity basis; the Costs Order Nisi remains absolute.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 3052
Parties
Applicant: SHALINI NARESH KUMAR BASANT; Respondent: STEVENSEC SERVICES LIMITED; Interested Party: YUEN TSZ CHUN, FRANK (AS TRUSTEE OF THE K.S. SHAHANI TRUST); 1st Intervener: RAJAN KISHIN SHAHANI; 2nd Intervener: DILIP KISHINCHAND SHAHANI; 3rd Intervener: NIKITA SHAHANI; 4th Intervener: AYESHA SHAHANI
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 July 2025
Case Number
HCMP57/2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (trusts) / Costs Decision (summary Assessment)
Outcome
Costs application refused in full; Costs Order Nisi not varied and now absolute; Applicant ordered to pay costs personally on an indemnity basis
Legal Topics
Conversion Application, Originating Summons Vs Writ, Indemnity Costs, Costs Assessment
Source Language
EN
Trusts Civil Procedure Costs Equity Conversion Application Originating Summons Vs Writ Indemnity Costs Costs Assessment

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SHALINI NARESH KUMAR BASANT

Applicant

STEVENSEC SERVICES LIMITED

Respondent

YUEN TSZ CHUN, FRANK (AS TRUSTEE OF THE K.S. SHAHANI TRUST)

Interested Party

RAJAN KISHIN SHAHANI

1st Intervener

DILIP KISHINCHAND SHAHANI

2nd Intervener

NIKITA SHAHANI

3rd Intervener

AYESHA SHAHANI

4th Intervener

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (trusts) / Costs Decision (summary Assessment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs of the Conversion Application and related proceedings should be borne personally by the Applicant or paid from the trust fund
  2. 2 Whether costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis
  3. 3 Whether the originating summons procedure was appropriate given serious factual disputes and therefore whether conversion to writ was required

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant acted unreasonably in commencing and persisting with an originating summons despite clear serious factual disputes and inter partes warnings; conversion to writ was appropriate and on these facts costs of the Conversion Application and the Costs Application must be borne personally by the Applicant and assessed on an indemnity basis; the Costs Order Nisi remains absolute.

Court Disposition

Costs application refused in full; Costs Order Nisi not varied and now absolute; Applicant ordered to pay costs personally on an indemnity basis

Orders

  • Application to vary the Costs Order Nisi refused
  • Costs of and incidental to the Costs Application to be paid by the Applicant personally on an indemnity basis, to be summarily assessed