Introduction

The Court of Final Appeal handed down its landmark judgment in Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Limited v Samantha Jane Bradley [2026] HKCFA 2, confirming a common law tort of harassment for individuals, while denying companies the standing to sue under that tort. Nevertheless, the Court established a clear route for corporate employers to obtain tailored injunctions in their own name to protect the safe working environment they are duty-bound to provide to current employees.

Background

Ms Bradley worked for Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Limited for more than a decade, rising to Director of Legal and Trust Management in 2013. Tensions grew in late 2020 after she indicated an expectation to succeed an outgoing director (Mr Leigh) and intimated she might leave the Company if this did not occur. After it was decided that Ms Bradley would not succeed Mr Leigh, her employment ended in October 2020. This was followed by a substantial separation agreement and a consultancy arrangement that the Company later brought to an early end in June 2021. Over the subsequent 17 months from December 2020 to early May 2022, Ms Bradley sent over 500 emails to the Company, its officers, employees, agents and external lawyers. These emails contained serious allegations including dishonesty, fraud, AML breaches, modern slavery, intimidation, bullying, discrimination, and “hush money” claims.

The Company sued for harassment in its own name and on behalf of its employees, agents and lawyers, seeking damages and an injunction. It contended that Ms Bradley’s conduct was deliberate, repetitive and foreseeably distressing to its recipients, causing anxiety, emotional distress and financial loss, notwithstanding the Company’s attempts at self help measures. The Court of First Instance struck out the corporate harassment claim on the basis that a company lacks feelings and therefore cannot sue for harassment, either in its own right or representatively. The Court of Appeal however accepted that, although the Company had no cause of action in harassment, it could still seek a “freestanding injunction” to restrain the conduct. The Court of Final Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal in part, confirming that while a company cannot sue under the tort of harassment, injunctive relief may be available. The Company was granted liberty to amend the pleadings and seek further directions.

Issues raised on appeal

On appeal, the Court addressed three core issues: whether the common law of Hong Kong recognises a tort of harassment; whether a company can sue under that tort; and whether, absent such a cause of action, a company can nonetheless obtain injunctions to restrain harassment, including in a representative capacity for its officers, employees, agents and legal representatives. The Court confirmed that the tort exists for natural persons and does not extend to corporate entities, as the tort protects against emotional harm and companies have “no feelings to injure.” At the same time, the Court extended by analogy the Broadmoor line of authority on injunctions in aid of duties, holding that an employer may seek an injunction in its own right to restrain conduct that interferes with its common law, non-delegable duty to provide a safe working environment. This relief is limited to current employees and to work-related harassment, and does not extend to former employees, independent contractors or private life conduct unconnected with employment. Separately, it was held that a company may seek an injunction to restrain harassment of its lawyers in order to protect its right to legal advice and representation.

The duty for employers to provide a safe working environment

The judgment underscores the employer’s non delegable common law duty to take reasonable care for employees’ safety, including a duty to ensure a safe place and system of work. If an employer knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, of a foreseeable risk of work related harassment and fails to take reasonable steps to mitigate or eliminate it, that may amount to a breach. The Court aligned harassment risks with other foreseeable workplace harms caused to current employees by co workers or third parties, such as assault or theft, and recognised that psychological safety is part of a safe workplace. In practical terms, this duty can justify pre emptive court action, including quia timet injunctions (court granted injunctions that prevent a wrongful act from occurring, rather than addressing an act that has already happened), to prevent escalating distress before more serious injury occurs. Importantly, the Court rejected arguments that employees’ personal rights to sue displace the employer’s responsibility; the employer’s duty cannot sensibly be outsourced to individual employees, who may be unwilling to litigate due to cost, risk, fear of escalation, retaliation or victimisation.

An employer’s injunctive remedy is limited to harassment that interferes with the provision of a safe working environment for current employees and does not extend into purely private spheres. However, the Court recognised that the “work environment” is fact sensitive and can encompass home offices and digital platforms in the era of remote and hybrid work. The Court also noted that, depending on the pleaded facts, a company might have a separate route through the economic tort of causing loss by unlawful means to address business loss, but that this is distinct from the safe workplace injunctive pathway.

Implications and practical tips for employers

The decision is a significant development for employer risk management. It confirms that the safe workplace duty may require more than reactive HR policies. Where harassment is reasonably foreseeable or unfolding, proactive legal measures up to and including injunctions may be warranted.

In practice, employers should revisit policies and procedures to address harassment risks in both physical and digital environments. Anti harassment policies should expressly cover harassment encountered by employees in their course of employment  with clear escalation routes to legal remedies where appropriate. Risk assessment protocols should identify patterns such as hostile communications, doxxing or targeted email campaigns, and include mechanisms for early legal intervention. Employers should also ensure that their internal systems document complaint handling, risk assessments, and mitigation steps taken, as failure to act on known or reasonably knowable harassment risks may amount to breach of the safe workplace duty.

As the scope of “workplace” now realistically includes remote work settings, home offices and corporate digital infrastructure, policies and response plans should account for all such settings when gathering evidence and preparing for injunctive relief. When applying for an injunction, applicants must plead: (i) the employer’s duty, (ii) the interference caused by the defendant’s harassment, and (iii) why an injunction is just and convenient under the court’s equitable jurisdiction. Courts will assess proportionality and expect orders to be time limited and adapted to legitimate communications where appropriate.

Where conduct targets a company’s in house or external lawyers, the company can represent its lawyers in seeking injunctive relief against further acts of harassment. Evidence of how the harassment impairs the company’s right to legal advice and representation,  whether through constraints on retainer terms or counsel selection, will be relevant to tailored protection for legal teams.

Conclusion

The Court of Final Appeal has modernised Hong Kong’s common law by affirming a tort of harassment for individuals while denying companies a cause of action. At the same time, it has furnished employers with a calibrated, equitable route to restrain harassment that threatens the safe work environment they are duty bound to provide to current employees, including in remote and digital contexts. The framework balances free expression with individual well-being, preserves the tort’s personal nature to mitigate floodgate concerns, and equips employers with a practical, court sanctioned tool to intervene swiftly when necessary.

Read the full judgement here.