On 9 January 2026, the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) handed down a landmark judgment in Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Limited v Samantha Jane Bradley [2026] HKCFA 2 ruling that where an employee is subjected to harassment by another person (whether a co‑worker, a former co‑worker, or even a third party) in the course of their employment, and where the harassment is, in substance, directed at the employer, the employer has standing to seek injunctive relief to put an end to such harassing conduct, notwithstanding its lack of a cause of action in tort.
Brief background: The case arose after the defendant, a former senior employee of the plaintiff, sent over 500 hostile and repetitive emails to the plaintiff company, its officers, employees, agents and solicitors, containing serious allegations of dishonesty and fraud.
The plaintiff brought a claim in harassment and sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from continuing her conduct as well as damages. It also sued in a representative capacity on behalf of its officers, employees, agents and solicitors for harassment allegedly directed at them.
CFI: In the Court of First Instance, the plaintiff’s action was dismissed on the basis that a corporate plaintiff, unlike an individual, did not have a cause of action in harassment.
CA: The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff could seek an injunction to restrain the defendant’s acts even if it did not have a cause of action in harassment. The Court held that the case was reasonably arguable and should be allowed to proceed to trial.
CFA: On appeal by the defendant, the CFA addressed the issues of whether Hong Kong common law recognises a tort of harassment, and whether a company, being a legal person incapable of experiencing feelings, can sue in tort.
The CFA confirmed that:
- A common law tort of harassment does exist in Hong Kong, recognising the ease and readiness with which acts of harassment could be committed in the digital age. The CFA further endorsed the following parameters for the tort of harassment:
a. the harasser, directly or through third parties, has by a course of sufficiently repetitive, unreasonable and oppressive conduct, caused, and which he ought reasonably to know would cause, worry, alarm, emotional distress or annoyance to the victim;
b. the conduct complained of objectively amounts to harassment;
c. the harasser either intends to cause harm or injury to the victim by his harassing conduct, or is reckless as to whether the victim would suffer harm or injury as a result of the harassing conduct; and
d. the victim must have suffered actual damage caused by the harassment. For this purpose, physical harm, including anxiety, distress, recognised psychiatric illness, and financial loss would suffice.
- A company cannot sue for harassment because it is incapable of suffering feelings or emotional distress.
- A corporate employer, lacking a cause of action in harassment, may still seek injunctive relief where the alleged harassment interferes with its legal duty to provide a safe working environment to its employees. The Court explained that the power to grant injunctive relief is not dependent on the existence of a cause of action between the parties.
The Court extended, by analogy, the principles of the Broadmoor type of injunction which is applicable to public bodies, whereby an injunction can be obtained to restrain acts that interfere with a public body’s performance of its statutory public duties, even if the public body itself has no cause of action against the wrongdoer.
The Court found that a private employer was under a common law duty to provide a safe working environment to its employees. As such, acts of harassment could be restrained in situations where employees were harassed in the course of their employment, such that the discharge of the corporate employer’s duty to provide a safe working environment was interfered with, and where the harassment was directed at the employer.
With respect to harassment against the plaintiff’s solicitors, the Court considered that the injunction could be granted on a separate footing of protecting the plaintiff’s constitutional right to legal advice and representation.
Ultimately, the Court allowed the defendant’s appeal in part, giving the plaintiff liberty to amend its pleadings to limit the claim to injunctive relief only.
The decision provides long-needed appellate guidance to an area of law previously shaped only by lower court decisions in Hong Kong. It also reinforces the judiciary’s critical role in ensuring that common law continues to evolve to address societal change, particularly where legislation has yet to provide clear guidance.
Implications for employers: The responsibility to maintain a safe working environment rests squarely on the employer and cannot be shifted to employees or confused with employees’ personal rights to safeguard themselves from harassment.
Employers must, therefore, put in place robust, proactive protocols to detect, prevent, report and address workplace harassment.
To mitigate legal and operational risks, employers should consider pre‑emptive measures including, where appropriate, a quia timet injunction, to stop harmful conduct before it escalates into a breach of the employer’s duty to provide a safe working environment, whether in physical offices or remote settings.
Contact:
Ashima Sood, Senior Consultant
Tel: +852 2555 9009
Email: ashimasood@nanwanis.com
