The law of tort, from its Latin and Old French origin meaning “wrong”, saw a major development in Hong Kong at the beginning of this year. After years of debate in the lower courts, Hong Kong’s top court has made it clear that, with Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Limited v Samantha Jane Bradley [2026] HKCFA 2, harassment is now a recognised tort under common law.

While it is described as a development, this was the last step of a recognition that was more than a decade in the making. The first High Court case in which this tort was first discussed and formulated was in 2013, and the formulation of its elements has largely been adopted by the Court of Final Appeal.

Under this tort, the victim has to prove that the conduct has been repetitive, unreasonable and oppressive; that the conduct amounts to harassment in the ordinary sense; that the harasser had intent and did not care if the victim suffered distress or anxiety etc; and that the victim actually suffered mental distress, anxiety or alarm.

It has also been clarified that a corporate entity cannot be a victim of this tort, although it can sue the harasser to protect its employees from harassment.

Although this tort can, as formulated, be committed both online and offline so there is no hiding behind a screen as a “keyboard warrior”, other jurisdictions such as Singapore and the UK have gone one step further: they can punch you in the face through your screen because they have unified statutes that criminalise harassment in cyberspace.

In Singapore, it is a criminal offence to cause distress or alarm by any form of online communication and to publish someone’s personal information with the intent to harass or facilitate harm (“doxxing”).

In the UK, it is a criminal offence to “cyberstalk”, such as by monitoring a victim’s online activity, repeatedly sending emails, or posting harmful content on social media. There are even various expedited procedures to afford victims quicker and easier protection.