In the recent judgment in Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Limited (for and on behalf of itself and others) v. Bradley 2026 HKCFA 2, the Court of Final Appeal addresses various aspects of the burgeoning tort of harassment in Hong Kong, part of which explicitly concerns a significant development in employment law concerning an employers’ ability to seek injunctive relief to protect against the harassment of its employees. This decision will have practical consequences for employers, employees, and those responsible for maintaining and protecting workplace policy and culture.
Landmark Shift: Injunctive Relief Against Workplace Harassment
Harassment of workers is a challenge for organisations, with far-reaching consequences for employee wellbeing and business operations. Traditionally, the legal tools available to address harassment have centred on individual claims brought by employees. The CFA’s recent judgment, however, confirms a notable expansion, allowing employers themselves to seek injunctive relief where harassment interferes with their duty to provide a safe working environment for employees.
The backgrounds to the rights considered by the CFA arise from the ‘Broadmoor jurisdiction’ (originated from Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority v Robinson, that was affirmed by the UK Supreme Court in Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust) involving public bodies, notably hospital authorities, seeking court injunctions to restrain conduct that interfered with their statutory functions). Historically, this jurisdiction was rooted in the need to protect the discharge of public duties, such as safeguarding patient welfare and confidentiality. The courts have been clear that, where a public authority faces interference with its statutory responsibilities, it may apply for injunctive relief, provided it is just and convenient to do so.
Until now, the jurisdiction’s scope was largely confined to statutory bodies acting in the public interest. The rationale was to ensure that entities charged with public duties could effectively fulfil their obligations, protected from wrongful interference – even if such relief incidentally benefitted individual employees or third parties.
The Broadmoor Jurisdiction: Evolution of Legal Remedies
The CFA’s judgment marks a pivotal evolution by considering whether the ‘Broadmoor jurisdiction’ might be extended beyond statutory bodies, to employers. The court recognises that an employer, even if not a public authority, owes a non-delegable duty of care to its employees, including the provision of a safe working environment. Where harassment occurs in the workplace – whether perpetrated by co-workers, former employees, or third parties – and the employer’s discharge of its duty to ensure safety is compromised, the employer may now have legal standing to seek injunctive relief.
This extension rests upon the special relationship between employer and employee, and the recognition that harassment is qualitatively distinct from ordinary workplace difficulties. The CFA acknowledged the psychological risks posed by unchecked harassment, and the practical barriers that may prevent employees from initiating claims themselves. Crucially, the CFA emphasised that the employer’s interest in maintaining a safe workplace justifies the ability to seek injunctive relief, not as an intrusion upon the employee’s autonomy, but as a necessary measure to uphold the employer’s own legal obligations.
Under the clarified law, employers may apply for injunctions in circumstances where harassment by any person – be it a fellow employee, ex-employee, or outsider – poses a reasonably foreseeable risk to the safety and wellbeing of employees in the workplace. The employer’s standing to seek relief arises not from the personal interests of individual employees, but from the employer’s duty to provide a safe working environment. The court’s willingness to grant relief is contingent upon the facts of each case, the nature and severity of the harassment, and the employer’s reasonable knowledge of the risk.
Employers are expected to take pre-emptive action where appropriate, including seeking anticipatory injunctions to prevent escalating harm. Notably, the scope of injunctive relief is limited to conduct interfering with the workplace or work environment; it does not extend to harassment occurring outside the employment context.
Distinction Between Employer and Employee Rights
A key concern addressed by the CFA is the autonomy of employees to pursue their own remedies. While employees retain the right to bring claims for harassment, the employer’s standing to seek injunctive relief does not undermine this individual autonomy. The CFA clarifies that the employer’s application for an injunction is distinct from any representative action on behalf of employees. Both employer and employee may have legitimate interests arising from the same facts, and both may seek relief where appropriate. The practical effect of an injunction granted to the employer may benefit employees, but this does not preclude employees from pursuing their own claims or remedies.
Actionable HR Strategies: How Companies Can Protect Employees
The extension of the ‘Broadmoor jurisdiction’ carries notable implications for employers and those responsible for HR policy. First, employers must recognise that their duty to provide a safe working environment is enforceable by means of injunctive relief. This creates a proactive obligation to address workplace harassment before it escalates into actionable harm.
HR managers and employers should review internal policies to ensure robust mechanisms for detecting and responding to harassment. The possibility of seeking injunctive relief provides a legal avenue to address persistent or severe cases, especially where internal disciplinary measures prove insufficient or are unavailable. Furthermore, the judgment underscores the importance of fostering a workplace culture intolerant of harassment, with clear procedures for reporting and managing complaints.
For employees, the development enhances protection against workplace harassment, as employers are incentivised to act pre-emptively. However, employees retain control over personal claims, and the employer’s intervention does not diminish their legal rights.
Limitations and Considerations
While the CFA confirms the employer’s standing to seek injunctive relief, it also acknowledges inherent limitations. Relief is confined to conduct affecting the workplace or work environment; harassment occurring outside this sphere remains beyond the scope. The court will exercise discretion, considering the severity of the interference, the foreseeability of harm, and the balance of interests between employer, employee, and any third parties.
Potential challenges include defining the boundaries of “workplace” and “work environment,” assessing the reasonableness of employer action, and ensuring that the rights of employees to pursue their own claims are respected. Employers must be cautious not to overstep, and should seek legal advice when considering injunctive applications to ensure compliance with both statutory and common law obligations.
If you would like to understand more on contentious implications connected to employment and HR issues, you can contact our team.
This article is for information purposes only. Its contents do not constitute legal advice and readers should not regard this article as a substitute for detailed advice in individual instances.
