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)

[2026] HKCFA 2 Court of Final Appeal 9 January 2026 • FACV3/2025 • 123 min read
100 cases cited (6 HK, 94 foreign) Cited by 5 cases

Practice Areas

Judges (5)

Counsel (8)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

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) [2026] HKCFA 2 is a Court of Final Appeal decision dated 9 January 2026. The catchwords span the Basic Law (Art 35(1)), the Competition Ordinance, the High Court Ordinance (s 21L), the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance, the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, and the Rules of the High Court. Cases it drew on include the District Court decisions in Chan Woon Wah t/a Ngai Hing Decoration Company v. Wong Chi Ping [2024] HKDC 422 and Chan Yuk Ping v. Liew Shuk Fui [2024] HKDC 999. The proceeding continued at the Court of Final Appeal, with a further decision reported as 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) [2026] HKCFA 10. The January 2026 decision has also been cited in other Court of Appeal, Court of First Instance and District Court matters, including TW Recovery Ltd and Others v. Best Leader Precious Metals Ltd and Others [2026] HKCA 361, Chrome Hearts LLC and Another v. Global Ventures Group Ltd formerly known as Chrome World JP Ltd and Others [2026] HKCFI 2374, Freitas De Souza, Helton and Another v. AEON Credit Service (Asia) Co., Ltd [2026] HKDC 1072, and X v. Y Company [2026] HKDC 549.

Summary

Samantha Jane Bradley appealed against a 'Banning Order' obtained by Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Limited prohibiting her from issuing further proceedings without leave. The Court of Final Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that Banning Orders must be subject to stringent requirements including a finding that the litigation was totally without merit, and the courts below had not applied the correct legal principles.

What legal provisions were engaged in Samantha Jane Bradley v. Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Limited [2026] HKCFA 2?

The Court of Final Appeal decision engaged Article 35(1) of the Basic Law together with the Competition Ordinance, s 21L of the High Court Ordinance, the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance, and the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, decided 9 January 2026.

Did the Bradley v. Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons litigation continue after [2026] HKCFA 2?

Yes, a further Court of Final Appeal decision in the same matter was reported as Samantha Jane Bradley v. Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Limited [2026] HKCFA 10, following the 9 January 2026 judgment.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (100)

SG (1)
[2013] SGCA 9
SLR (5)
[2001] 3 SLR(R) 379 [2013] 4 SLR 545 [2016] 1 SLR 1248 [2017] 1 SLR 373 [2019] 2 SLR 595
UK (49)
[1897] 2 QB 57 [1901] AC 1 [1928] 2 KB 144 [1932] AC 562 [1953] AC 180 [1968] 1 WLR 1091 [1973] 1 QB 27 [1974] AC 133 [1974] AC 436 [1976] 1 Ch 63 [1979] AC 210 [1980] 1 All ER 213 [1980] 1 WLR 1274 [1981] AC 557 [1981] AC 909 [1984] AC 262 [1992] 1 WLR 231 [1993] AC 334 [1993] QB 727 [1995] 1 WLR 1372 [1996] AC 284 [1997] AC 655 [1999] 2 AC 349 [2000] 1 WLR 1607 [2000] QB 775 [2003] 1 AC 518 [2003] 3 All ER 932 [2004] 1 WLR 1503 [2005] 2 AC 680 [2005] EWCA Civ 596 [2007] 1 AC 224 [2008] 1 AC 1 [2010] 1 WLR 1922 [2013] 1 WLR 935 [2013] 2 AC 185 [2014] EWCA Civ 1512 [2016] AC 219 [2016] EWHC 1003 [2017] EWCA Civ 1995 [2018] EWHC 241 [2021] EWHC 2542 [2022] AC 1217 [2023] AC 389 [2024] AC 211 [2024] AC 983 [2024] EWHC 2398 [2025] 1 WLR 97 [2025] 2 WLR 815 [2025] EWHC 1186
MY (2)
[2016] 4 MLJ 282 [2024] 10 MLJ 524
HK (43)
(2006) 9 HKCFAR 371 (2012) 15 HKCFAR 299 [1995] 3 HKC 313 [1998] 2 HKLRD 123 [1999] 2 HKLRD 293 [2001] 1 HKLRD 736 [2010] 3 HKLRD 371 [2012] 2 HKLRD 85 [2013] 2 HKLRD 1197 [2013] 2 HKLRD 714 [2014] 5 HKLRD 60 [2017] 4 HKLRD 1 [2018] HKCFI 70 [2018] HKDC 1613 [2018] HKDC 19 [2019] 1 HKLRD 163 [2019] 5 HKLRD 500 [2019] HKCFI 1007 [2020] 3 HKLRD 39 [2020] 5 HKLRD 638 [2020] HKCFI 1153 [2020] HKCFI 513 [2020] HKCFI 652 [2020] HKCFI 826 [2020] HKDC 66 [2021] HKCFI 3254 [2021] HKDC 1431 [2021] HKDC 158 [2022] HKDC 917 [2023] 5 HKLRD 89 [2023] HKCFI 2252 [2024] 3 HKLRD 32 [2024] 4 HKLRD 428 [2024] HKDC 1211 [2024] HKDC 2144 [2024] HKDC 422 [2024] HKDC 585 [2024] HKDC 999 [2025] HKCFA 13 [2025] HKDC 1578 [2025] HKDC 545 [2025] HKDC 94 [2025] HKFC 113

Cited By (5)

Citation influence

HKLII records this judgment as cited by 2 later judgments. This counts every later Hong Kong judgment that references this case, which is broader than the resolved citations listed above.

Related cases

Other Hong Kong judgments involving the same parties or counsel.

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Hong Kong Courts portal.

Read on HKLII

Source: HKLII ([2026] HKCFA 2)