The CFA Appeal Committee Granted Leave to Appeal against a Judgment of the Court of Appeal regarding the Common Law Tort of Harassment and Free-Standing Injunctions.

Lavesh Kirpalani, together with Sonny Payne of GPS Legal LLP, represented the defendant (applicant) in 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) [2025] HKCFA 13, where the defendant applied for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment ([2024] HKCA 747) before the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal (“the Appeal Committee”).

The plaintiff company, Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Limited (“SEKSL”), brought an action against the defendant, Ms. Samantha Jane Bradley (“Ms. Bradley”), seeking an injunction to restrain Ms. Bradley from alleged harassing conduct and for damages allegedly incurred as a result of such conduct. SEKSL sued on its own behalf and as a representative of its current and former officers, employees, and agents (collectively, “Representees“).

On 31 May 2023, the Court of First Instance dismissed SEKSL’s claims under an application for summary determination of a point of law because, as a corporate entity, SEKSL had no standing to bring a harassment claim in its own capacity. Furthermore, the judge found that SEKSL did not have the “same interest” as the individuals it sought to represent, and therefore could not bring a representative action on their behalf.

SEKSL lodged an appeal against that decision and succeeded on appeal, largely based on the introduction of a new relief (never pursued at first instance) – a “free-standing injunction”.

Having heard oral submissions, the Appeal Committee granted leave to appeal in respect of the following questions of law:

(1) Whether a “free-standing” injunction can 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 commenced pursuant to Order 15 Rule 12 of the RHC for the common law tort of harassment, if the representative plaintiff is a corporate entity, does it have the “same interest” as the individual representees under Rule 12(1)?

The hearing is listed for hearing on 20 November 2025.

Link to the Judgment: https://lnkd.in/gBk8At9g

Link to Lavesh’s profile: https://lnkd.in/gGUke9wY