SHALINI NARESH KUMAR BASANT v. STEVENSEC SERVICES LTD

HCMP 57/2024

[2025] HKCFI 5460

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 57 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS (2)

________________________

1.  I refer to the Decision which I handed down on 9 April 2025 (the “Decision”)[1]. I refer further to the Decision on Costs which I handed down on 17 July 2025[2] (the “Decision on Costs”). I use the same terms and abbreviations as used in the two decisions.

2.  For reasons set out in the Decision on Costs, I refused the Applicant’s Costs Application.  I gave directions at §20 for summary assessment of the costs both for the Conversion Application and Costs Application.

3.  The Respondent has lodged its Statement of Costs (“R/SC”).  The Interveners have separately lodged 2, one in respect of the Conversion Application (“I/SC/Conv”)  and one in respect of the Costs Application (“I/SC/Costs”). The Applicant has filed her Lists of Objections (“A/SO”).  The Respondent and the Interveners have then filed their respective replies (“R/Reply” and “I/Reply”).  I have considered all of them.

The Respondent’s costs

4.  In R/SC, the Respondent claim costs in the total amount of HK$509,600.

5.  I have considered the objections raised on behalf of the Applicant.  The main complaint is made on the basis of unreasonable excessiveness.  In respect of counsel fees, objections are raised on the basis that no certificate for counsel has been granted.

6.  In respect of Item C (Communications), the Respondent claims total man-hours of 21.5 hours in the total sum of HK$96,000.  I find that unreasonably high even on an indemnity basis.  I allow only HK$75,000.

7.  In respect of Item D (Professional Work), the Respondent claims total man-hours of 50 hours in the in the total sum of HK$191,600.  I find that unreasonably high even on an indemnity basis.  This is particularly so when counsel had been engaged.  I allow only HK$130,000.

8.  The Applicant’s objection on counsel fee ignores paragraph 2(3)  of Part II of the First Schedule to Order 62 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A).  I accept the submission made on behalf of the Respondent in R/Reply that certificate for counsel is not necessary for one counsel appearing before a judge in chambers.  I also do not find the fees claimed unreasonable.

9.  Adopting a broad-brush approach, I assess the Respondent’s fees at HK$427,000.

The Interveners’ costs

10.  In respect of the Conversion Application:

(a)  The Interveners in the I/SC/Conv claim costs in the total amount of HK$976,785 (solicitors’ costs in the total amount of HK$256,785, and counsel fees in the total amount of HK$720,000);

(b)  I have considered the objections raised on behalf of the Applicant.  The main complaint is made on the basis of unreasonable excessiveness.  In respect of counsel fees, it is asserted on the Applicant’s behalf that “there should have been no need to instruct both Senior Counsel and junior counsel”.  The amount of their fees are also objected to;

(c)  I am of the view that the time and costs charged by the solicitors are reasonable;

(d)  In respect of counsel fees, I have granted certificate for 2 counsel. I also do not find the fees unreasonable;

(e)  Adopting a broad-brush approach, I assess the Interveners’ costs for the Conversion Application at HK$976,000.

11.  In respect of the Costs Application:

(a)  I have considered I/SC/Costs and A/SO;

(b)  I am of the view that the claimed sum of HK$86,226 is reasonable;

(c)  Adopting a broad-brush approach, I assess the Interveners’ costs for the Costs Application at HK$86,000.