Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Harassment tort

Legal area

Court

9 Jan 2026

SAMANTHA JANE BRADLEY v. SIR ELLY KADOORIE & SONS LIMITED (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITSELF, ITS CURRENT AND FORMER OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS, INCLUDING ITS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, MESSRS SIMMONS & SIMMONS)

Citation

[2026] HKCFA 2
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV3/2025

The Court held that Hong Kong recognises a common law tort of harassment with elements of repetitive oppressive conduct, objective harassment, intention or recklessness, and actual distress (economic loss alone insufficient); a company cannot sue in harassment because it cannot suffer distress; nonetheless a corporate employer lacking a harassment cause of action may obtain injunctive relief under an incremental extension of the Broadmoor jurisdiction to prevent interference with its legal duty (common law or statutory) to provide a safe working environment for current employees and to protec…
19 Nov 2024

SIR ELLY KADOORIE & SONS LTD (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITSELF, ITS CURRENT AND FORMER OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS, INCLUDING ITS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, MESSRS SIMMONS & SIMMONS) v. SAMANTHA JANE BRADLEY

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1030
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV194/2023

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the questions identified were either not decided by the Court of Appeal, were fact-specific and unsuitable for interlocutory determination under Order 14A, or did not raise issues of great general or public importance. The Court held the Plaintiff has jurisdiction to seek a free-standing injunction on the pleaded facts, the locus standi point was reasonably arguable and suitable for incremental development at trial, and the Plaintiff has the 'same interest' for Order 15 r12 purposes. The Notice of Motion for leave was dismissed…
26 Aug 2024

SIR ELLY KADOORIE & SONS LTD (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITSELF, ITS CURRENT AND FORMER OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS, INCLUDING ITS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, MESSRS SIMMONS & SIMMONS) v. SAMANTHA JANE BRADLEY

Citation

[2024] HKCA 747
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV194/2023

The Court held the appeal, concluding the Court has jurisdiction to grant a free‑standing injunction restraining the defendant from continuing acts of harassment directed at the plaintiff's current and former officers, employees and agents; the plaintiff may bring the action as a representative claim because the plaintiff and the representees have the same interest for Order 15, r12 purposes; the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief could not be struck out under interlocutory strike out procedures and the question whether a company can sue in the tort of harassment at common law is reasona…
5 Feb 2021

KWONG YIU KEUNG STANLEY AND ANOTHER v. CHIU SIN SHUM AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKDC 158
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5745/2017

Plaintiffs failed to prove actionable private nuisance or breach of Clause 9(1)(iii); expert evidence for plaintiffs was tainted and unreliable and objective investigations (management office and police) did not corroborate plaintiffs' complaints; defendants had taken reasonable mitigation steps; however defendant-plaintiff Kwong's repeated intercom calls amounted to harassment (reckless course of conduct causing distress) and defendants are awarded general damages of HK$100,000 with interest; injunctions sought by both sides refused or rendered academic; costs awarded to defendants on indemn…
26 Mar 2018

黃碩雄對范荏愷

Citation

[2018] HKCA 168
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV130/2017

The appeals were dismissed because the pleaded causes of action lacked legal foundation and were either not recognized (age discrimination), legally inapplicable (incitement absent procuring a breach with loss), factually insufficient to establish harassment (absence of requisite course of conduct causing distress), or legally barred (statements in litigation protected by absolute/qualified privilege); privacy claims under the PDPO were improperly brought in the High Court and personal data used in litigation are exempt under s60B PDPO; new allegations raised on appeal could not be considered…
26 Mar 2018

黃碩雄對范荏愷

Citation

[2018] HKCA 168
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV127/2017

The appeals were dismissed because the pleaded causes of action lacked legal foundation or necessary elements: no statutory basis for age discrimination; procuring breach/economic tort not established (no termination by management and no loss shown); alleged harassment did not meet required repetitive and distress-causing elements; statements and evidence used in court proceedings are protected by privilege; privacy claims under the PDPO are procedurally and substantively inappropriate for the High Court and much of the material was exempt under s60B — therefore the strike-out orders below we…
29 Jan 2018

MA (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG YUK SING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 158
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1641/2010

The court held that the Ordered Accounts must reflect the full scope of Au's contractual and fiduciary duty to give proper, complete and accurate accounts and therefore the Draft Order must not be qualified by limiting phrases such as "to the best of [Au's] knowledge"; similarly, Au must exhibit all necessary related invoices, vouchers and supporting documents to the verifying affidavit (not limited by a narrow possession/custody/power formulation). The Draft Order was approved subject to limited agreed amendments and replacement of "related" with "necessary" in specified paragraphs; Au was o…
17 Jan 2018

CHEUNG PING SUM v. WONG CHI HANG

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 70
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA289/2017

The application to strike out was dismissed. The court found no abuse of process or res judicata because the earlier estate action remains pending and the harassment issues either had not arisen at the interlocutory stage or are not identical; on the face of the pleadings the harassment claim discloses a reasonable cause of action because the pleaded acts and their continuous effects could amount to a sufficiently repetitive course of conduct and recklessness was pleaded; the claim was not scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. Accordingly the claim should proceed to trial and consolidation was…