Key takeaways
In one of its first major judgments of 2026, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) has confirmed the existence in Hong Kong of the emerging tort of harassment. In Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Ltd v Samantha Jane Bradley [2026] HKCFA 2, the CFA held that harassment is actionable as a tort at common law in Hong Kong and provided guidance on its ingredients and scope for further development.
In its judgment, the CFA also confirmed that whilst an action in the tort of harassment was not available to a company, it could nonetheless seek injunctive relief on behalf of its employees and lawyers to restrain acts of harassment both in its own capacity and by way of representative action.
The decision brings coherence and appellate authority to Hong Kong’s previously fragmented approach to civil harassment, and clarifies the scope of anti-harassment injunctions available to individuals and corporate entities.
Background
The case arose from a dispute between a former senior employee and a prominent Hong Kong corporate group. After the Defendant’s employment ended and a separation agreement was reached, the defendant sent more than 500 emails to the Plaintiff company’s officers, employees and legal advisers, making serious allegations of fraud, dishonesty and other misconduct.
The Plaintiff company brought proceedings against the Defendant in harassment and sought damages and injunctive relief, both directly and in a representative capacity.
The Defendant applied to strike out the claims on the basis that a corporate entity could not sue in harassment, and the case ultimately reached the CFA for determination.
Issues and decision
Does the tort of harassment exist in Hong Kong?
Whilst the parties and the courts below proceeded on the assumption that a tort of harassment existed, the amici curiae (i.e. counsel “friends of the court”) appointed by the CFA posed a key preliminary question for the CFA’s consideration: Does Hong Kong law recognise a tort of harassment?
In its judgment, the CFA confirmed that Hong Kong law recognises a common law tort of harassment. In doing so, it considered the absence of a comprehensive civil anti-harassment statute in contrast with other common law jurisdictions, the growing means and incidence of harassment through electronic communication, and Hong Kong’s case law to date.
The CFA set out and endorsed the elements of the tort of harassment in the following terms (at [176]):
- 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;
- the conduct complained of must, objectively, amount to harassment (in the ordinary sense of that word);
- 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
- the victim must suffer some distress or worse as a result of the defendant’s actions before they can sue for harassment (at [185]).
The CFA also considered, but left open, the availability of defences to the tort of harassment (at [189] - [191]).
The CFA’s determination of the other principal issues in the appeal can be summarised as follows:
Can a corporate entity bring a claim in the tort of harassment?
The CFA held that the tort of harassment is a tort against the person and is therefore available only to natural persons, not to corporate entities. This reflects the fact that the tort protects against personal distress and anxiety, which a company cannot experience (at [19] and [192]).
Can a “free-standing” injunction be granted to a corporate entity if it cannot pursue a claim?
The CFA confirmed that a corporate entity may nevertheless obtain injunctive relief to restrain harassment directed at its employees and legal advisers. An employer may seek an injunction to protect its duty to provide a safe working environment for its employees, and a company may also seek relief to prevent harassment of its lawyers on the basis the same interferes with its right to legal advice and representation (at [109] – [113]). In so doing, the CFA extended the existing “Broadmoor” jurisdiction which has allowed free-standing injunctions to be granted to support public bodies in carrying out their public duties.
In its decision, the CFA recognised the very real practical issues which employees might face if they were to bring claims directly including: possible exposure to further harassment (which could extend to families), exposure to costs orders, and uncertainty on future funding (at [94]).
Can a corporate entity bring a representative action on behalf of employees and others in the tort of harassment?
The CFA further confirmed that although a corporate entity has no personal cause of action in harassment it may in the circumstances also seek injunctive relief in a representative capacity as there was sufficient commonality of interest (at [114] – [119]).
Practical implications
- Natural persons: Individuals may bring a claim in the tort of harassment to seek injunctive relief. Where a valid harassment claim is established based on mental distress, damages might be recovered for financial loss suffered as a result of the harassment” (at [188]).
- Corporate entities: A company itself cannot bring a claim and seek injunctive relief in the tort of harassment. However, a company, as an employer, may apply for injunctive relief to restrain harassment directed at its employees and legal advisers to protect its duty as an employer (at [111]) and right to seek legal advice (at [113]). It can also do so through a representative action (at [117]).
Commentary
In the grander scheme of things, the CFA’s decision sits at the intersection of legislative silence and judicial development. Hong Kong has no comprehensive civil statute in contrast to other common law jurisdictions. Absent legislation, the lower courts began to develop a common law tort of harassment, but without confirmatory appellate authority. The CFA has now confirmed the existence of a common law tort of harassment while leaving its precise contours to future cases (at [89], [155], [157], [191]).
The case is a good illustration of the courts’ role in maintaining and developing the common law where legislation has not kept pace with social and technological change.