Introduction

In Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Limited v Samantha Jane Bradley [2026] HKCFA 2, the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) delivered a landmark judgment that shapes the boundaries of the common law tort of harassment and the availability of injunctive relief for corporate entities in Hong Kong. The case raised a novel and pressing question for employers: can a company obtain court orders to stop the harassment of its employees?

While confirming the existence of the tort of harassment in Hong Kong common law, the CFA unanimously held that this particular cause of action is inherently personal and cannot be invoked by a corporate plaintiff in its own right. However, in a significant development for workplace protections, the CFA simultaneously affirmed that a corporate employer does have standing to seek a “free-standing” injunction to restrain harassing conduct targeted at its staff where such conduct interferes with the employer’s duty to provide a safe working environment. This distinction between a claim for damages and a claim for equitable relief carries profound implications for corporate litigation strategies and the legal tools available to address campaigns of harassment against a workforce.

Factual background

The appellant, Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Limited (“Company”), is a prominent Hong Kong-based company. The respondent, Ms Samantha Jane Bradley (“Ms Bradley”), is a former employee of the Company.

The dispute stemmed from a prolonged series of communications by Ms Bradley after her employment ended in December 2020. The Company alleged that, between December 2020 and May 2022, Ms Bradley sent more than 500 emails to its officers, employees, agents, and legal representatives. These emails reportedly included repeated, baseless, and grave accusations of criminal misconduct and unethical behaviour against the Company and its associates, resulting in significant distress for the recipients.

In response, the Company commenced legal proceedings against Ms Bradley, both on its own behalf and as a representative under Order 15, rule 12 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A) on behalf of its current and former officers, employees, and agents (“Representees”). The Company sought damages for harassment and an injunction to restrain Ms Bradley’s conduct.

The case followed a winding procedural route. Initially, in May 2023, the Court of First Instance (“CFI”) dismissed the Company’s claim on a preliminary point of law. The CFI held that, as a corporate entity incapable of suffering emotional distress, the Company had no legal standing to sue for the tort of harassment in its own capacity. Furthermore, the CFI found that the Company did not share the “same interest” as the individual Representees, and therefore could not maintain a representative action on their behalves.

The Company successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal in 2024. A key element was the Company’s emphasis on a novel remedy: a “free-standing injunction” which does not require the Company to have a valid tort claim for damages. The Court of Appeal granted this injunctive relief while rejecting the damages claim, paving the way for the final appeal.

The CFA Appeal Committee granted leave to appeal, crystallising the following fundamental questions of broad legal significance for the CFA to determine:

1.       Can a “free-standing” injunction be granted to a corporate plaintiff if it could not pursue a claim for the tort of harassment as a matter of law?

2.       Can a corporate entity bring an action on its own based on the common law tort of harassment?

3.       In a representative action for harassment, if the representative plaintiff is a corporate entity, does it have the “same interest” as the individual representees?

The tort of harassment at common law

In a joint judgment, Lam PJ and Lord Neuberger NPJ confirmed the existence of the tort of harassment under Hong Kong common law. The CFA held that recognizing such a tort was necessary to ensure the law remains responsive to contemporary social conditions and public expectations, and is consistent with developments in other major common law jurisdictions. The judgment provides authoritative guidance on the essential elements of the tort, establishing a framework for future cases.

To establish a claim in the tort of harassment, a plaintiff must prove the following key elements:

1.        The defendant engaged in a course of conduct. A single incident is generally insufficient; the tort requires persistence or repetition.

2.        The conduct was targeted at the plaintiff, whether directly or indirectly.

3.        The conduct, in its totality, was unreasonable and oppressive.

4.        The defendant intended to cause harm, or was reckless as to whether the conduct would cause alarm, fear, distress, or anxiety.

5.        The conduct did, in fact, cause the plaintiff to suffer significant mental distress. The tort is not actionable per se; proof of actual distress or worse is required. Purely financial loss, without resultant distress, is insufficient to ground a claim.

The CFA’s decision

Corporate entities cannot sue for harassment in their own right

The CFA unanimously ruled that a corporate entity cannot bring a claim for the tort of harassment in its own right. The tort is fundamentally tied to the infliction of mental or emotional distress, which a company — as an artificial legal person — is incapable of experiencing.

The CFA explained that the essence of harassment lies in its impact on human emotions, such as causing alarm, fear, distress, or anxiety. While companies can suffer reputational or financial harm, these do not suffice for the tort, which is not actionable per se but requires proof of actual mental suffering.

The CFA drew analogies to other torts like assault or battery, which also require personal harm that corporations cannot sustain. This holding aligns with precedents from other jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, where similar restrictions apply to corporate claimants in harassment claims.

This decision clarifies that corporations must rely on alternative remedies, such as defamation for reputational damage or the newly affirmed injunctive relief for protecting staff, rather than claiming harassment directly.

Limits of representation: Company standing for injunctive relief in harassment cases

The CFA held that a corporate entity does share the “same interest” as individual employees under Order 15, rule 12 of the Rules of the High Court for the specific purpose of seeking an injunction to restrain harassment in the workplace. The requirement for “same interest” is satisfied because both the employer and the employees seek common relief (an injunction) to address a common grievance (harassment affecting the work environment).

However, this representative capacity is strictly limited. It applies only to claims for injunctive relief and ends once the question of an injunction is resolved. The company cannot represent employees in claims for damages for personal mental distress, as this involves individual assessments and diverges from the employer’s interest.

Availability of a free-standing injunction for a corporate plaintiff without a harassment claim

In a significant extension of equitable principles, the CFA held that a corporate entity may, in principle, seek a free-standing injunction to restrain harassing conduct directed its current employees, where such conduct interferes with the employer’s non-delegable common law duty to provide a safe working environment. This jurisdiction draws from the Broadmoor line of authority (originating from the English case of Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority v Robinson [2000] QB 775), which traditionally allows public bodies to obtain injunctions to protect the performance of their statutory duties. The CFA extended this to private employers, recognizing their common law duty to provide a safe working environment for employees. Additionally, the CFA noted that harassment targeting a company’s legal representatives could interfere with the employer’s constitutional right to legal advice under the Basic Law, further justifying injunctive relief.

However, the CFA found that the Company’s claim, as pleaded, was defective and required “a substantial amendment to the statement of claim”. The CFA stressed that such injunctive relief is not automatic and must be carefully particularized and justified on the facts, including a clear link between the harassment and the impairment of the duty to provide a safe workplace. This approach ensures the remedy is not used as a workaround for a lacking substantive cause of action.

This ruling opens new avenues for employers to protect their workforce from external harassment without needing to prove the tort personally, but it underscores the need for precise and evidence-based applications.

Takeaway

In today’s workplace, campaigns of harassment by disgruntled employees, former employees or other external parties are a disruptive reality. This presents a significant challenge for employers, who are under a common law duty to provide a safe workplace and a safe system of work for their employees. When persistent, distressing communications targeting a company and its employees, the employer thus faces a legal conundrum: employee well-being and business operations are impacted by conduct that breaches this duty, yet the company itself traditionally had no direct claim or remedies in law to stop it.

The CFA’s judgment serves to clarify the law while forging a critical new remedy. The Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Limited case confirms the existence of the tort of harassment, requiring proof of unreasonable, oppressive conduct that causes actual alarm, fear, distress, or anxiety, while clarifying that corporate plaintiffs lack standing for damages or representative actions on behalf of affected individuals. The CFA extends equitable relief by allowing employers to seek free-standing injunctions to safeguard their workforce, grounded in the duty to provide a safe working environment or protect access to legal advice, provided the pleadings demonstrate specific interference rather than generic harm.

The judgment provides clarity for employers, employees, and legal professionals. Companies may obtain injunctive protection against harassment directed at their staff without proving the tort personally, but must rely on alternative claims like defamation for reputational damage and ensure precise documentation of the conduct’s impact. To mitigate litigation risks and enhance workplace protections, employers should implement policies for reporting harassment, maintain detailed records of incidents, and consult lawyers early to frame applications for relief consistently with the CFA’s emphasis on evidence-based pleadings.

 

For enquiries, please feel free to contact us at:

E: employment@onc.hk                                                    T: (852) 2810 1212 W: www.onc.hk                                                                    F: (852) 2804 6311 19th Floor, Three Exchange Square, 8 Connaught Place, Central, Hong Kong

Important: The law and procedure on this subject are very specialised and complicated. This article is just a very general outline for reference and cannot be relied upon as legal advice in any individual case. If any advice or assistance is needed, please contact our solicitors.

Published by ONC Lawyers © 2026