The Court of Final Appeal handed down a landmark judgment, Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Ltd v Samantha Jane Bradley [2026] HKCFA 2, confirming that the tort of harassment exists under Hong Kong common law and that it is unavailable to corporate entities.

In a joint judgment delivered by Lam PJ and Lord Neuberger NPJ confirmed that the tort of harassment exists as a matter of Hong Kong common law, holding that the development of such a tort was evident given the ease and readiness with which acts of harassment can be committed in digital age, and given the fact that many of the lower courts had already acknowledged the need and existence of the tort of harassment.

The elements of the tort of harassment are that the conduct must first be sufficiently repetitive, unreasonable, and oppressive. The conduct would cause the victim worry, alarm, emotional distress or annoyance. Secondly, the conduct must amount to harassment in the ordinary sense of the word. Thirdly, the harasser must intend, or be reckless as to the harm caused to the victim. Fourthly, as a result of the harasser’s conduct, the victim must have suffered some distress or worse. Mere financial loss would be insufficient.

Accordingly, a company cannot sue for harassment because it cannot suffer emotional distress.

In a further joint judgment delivered by Cheung CJ and Lam PJ, the Court extended the Broadmoor type of injunction, which covers situations where a public body is under a statutory duty to discharge specific functions or responsibilities in the public interest, to cover a private corporate employer which is under a common law duty to provide a safe working environment to its employees. The Court confirmed that a plaintiff could seek injunctive relief to restrain the harassment of its employees in the course of their employment. But given that the matter was not pleaded, the plaintiff would have to make a substantial amendment to its statement of claim.

The judgment can be viewed here: https://lnkd.in/gvst296X.

The press summary can be seen here: https://lnkd.in/gvst296X

Lavesh Kirpalani, together with Sonny Payne of GPS Legal LLP, represented the defendant.