Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Sexual harassment

  • 19 Nov 2025

    SRI WAHYUNI 對 林銳生

    Citation
    [2025] HKDC 1954
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEO4/2023

    The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the respondent failed to show the proposed appeal had a reasonable prospect of success or any other reason warranting a hearing under s63A(2); the trial judge's factual findings—particularly the authenticity of the recordings and the adverse credibility assessment of the respondent—were supported by evidence and not shown to be manifestly wrong, and there was no legal obligation on the Equality Commission or counsel to independently verify the recordings.

  • 14 Feb 2025

    SRI WAHYUNI 對 林銳生

    Citation
    [2025] HKDC 271
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEO4/2023

    Court accepted applicant's credible testimony and the authenticity of audio recordings, found the conduct occurred during employment, was subjectively unwelcome and objectively would cause offence or intimidation, thereby constituting sexual harassment under s2(5) and s23(2) SDO; damages for income loss, emotional harm and punitive relief were awarded with specified interest and costs.

  • 7 Jan 2025

    Y 對 B及另五人

    Citation
    [2025] HKDC 21
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEO2/2024

    Leave to appeal refused because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; the strike-out was properly grounded in lack of pleaded cause of action, absence of objective evidence for alleged sexual harassment and malicious/unmeritorious pleading; interim costs order was properly made but varied downward to party and party assessment totalling HKD100,000 (DCEO1) and HKD110,000 (DCEO2).

  • 2 Aug 2024

    Y 對 A

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 1175
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEO1/2024

    The statements of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action because the claimant did not plead which statutory scope of the Sex Discrimination Ordinance applied and the pleaded facts did not objectively show conduct meeting the s2(5) definition of sexual harassment; several pleaded matters were irrelevant, scandalous or oppressive; accordingly both claims were struck out and dismissed and costs awarded to defendants.

  • 25 Jun 2024

    NG HON SUM 對 LAM MAN LUNG 及另一人

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 943
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEO7/2023

    The applicant's claims were frivolous, unrelated to the Sex Discrimination Ordinance and constituted an abuse of process; accordingly the exceptions in District Court Ordinance s73B(3) apply and the applicant must pay the first respondent's costs, including the barrister's certificate.

  • 30 Apr 2024

    X v. MARIANI, STEFANO

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 636
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEO11/2023

    The Anonymity Order was set aside because the claimant failed the high duty of full, frank and accurate disclosure in the ex‑parte application; significant adverse matters (selective omission of WhatsApp content, relevant passages of the Law Firm meeting note, and the claimant's authorship of anonymous emails and related threatened defamation proceedings) were objectively material to the court's weighing exercise and would have defeated or altered the need for an ex‑parte AO; medical reports grounded in untested subjective history were given little weight at this interlocutory stage; open jus…

  • 18 Apr 2024

    鄭潔芳 對 陳進財

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 577
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEO10/2020

    Although the court accepted the applicant's evidence as more credible overall, the central issue was whether the sexual conduct was 'unwelcome'. On the facts and contemporaneous WhatsApp messages the applicant did not demonstrate clear non‑consent or that the conduct was unwelcome; she in many instances encouraged, acquiesced in or responded positively to sexual overtures. Therefore the conduct did not meet the statutory test in s2(5) and the claim failed.

  • 2 Apr 2024

    NG HON SUM v. LAM MAN LUNG AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 415
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEO7/2023

    The alleged remarks were ordinary Cantonese insults in the context of a political feud and heated quarrel and did not constitute unwelcome sexual advances, requests or conduct of a sexual nature under the SDO; the EOC's prior finding supported insufficient evidence of sexual conduct; the 2nd Respondent had taken reasonably practicable preventive and investigative steps under s46(3) SDO, so the claim against the 2nd Respondent was frivolous/misconceived and costs were properly awarded to the 2nd Respondent.

  • 4 Mar 2024

    NG HON SUM 對 LAM MAN LUNG及另一人

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 323
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEO7/2023

    The amended statement of claim failed to disclose any reasonable cause under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance because the alleged conduct consisted of vulgar insults and workplace complaints devoid of a sexual element, and any references to claimant's wife or mother did not make the claimant the object of sexual advances or attraction; the victimisation allegation about withholding a firearm did not allege differential treatment grounded in sex. Accordingly the court granted the strike‑out application and dismissed the claimant's amended claim against the first respondent.

  • 13 Dec 2023

    SRI WAHYUNI 對 林銳生

    Citation
    [2023] HKDC 1765
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEO4/2023

    The defendant failed to prove the requested recordings existed or that the claimant had possession, custody or control of them; the claimant's sworn denials were decisive; disclosure of the specified recordings was not shown to be necessary for fair disposal and amounted to a fishing expedition, so the court had no jurisdiction under Order 24 r 7 to make the order and the application was dismissed.