Permanent injunction granted to Pansy Ho after harassment and lawsuits in Hong Kong

Pansy Ho Chiu King obtained this week a permanent injunction against Steffi Chen Pan-yu for a year-long harassment campaign, and the court ordered her to pay HK$1.8 million (US$229,500) in compensation. The measure, issued by the High Court of Hong Kong following a request filed by Ho in March, prohibits Chen from contacting Ho, her family, or her companies.

What did the High Court determine in the permanent injunction against Pansy Ho

The ruling came after Justice Grace Chow Chiu-man concluded that Chen did not provide written evidence to support her defense, while Ho presented sufficient evidence of ongoing harassment. The judge stated that the defendant displayed "a tendency to repeatedly attempt to contact the plaintiff and her family and business associates to make false allegations," causing "ongoing distress and damage" to Ho.

"I am further satisfied that based on the matters pleaded, the plaintiff is entitled to the injunctive relief sought," said Judge Grace Chow Chiu-man, according to the report from the South China Morning Post.

The permanent order restricts any direct or indirect attempt at contact between Chen and Ho, covering both electronic communications and hand-delivered letters, according to the trial text reported by the press.

Proven facts: letters, emails, and claims

The facts leading to the lawsuit include:

• repeated deliveries of emails and hand-delivered letters in which Chen falsely claimed that Ho had promised her an executive position at MGM China;

• deliveries of letters to the Hong Kong offices of MGM China and Shun Tak Holdings, where Ho is Group Executive Chairman and Managing Director;

• the delivery of correspondence to the home of Maisy Ho, Pansy Ho's deceased sister, containing threats to publicly disclose claims if the alleged promise was not fulfilled;

• a letter of demand sent by Chen's law firm claiming HK$21.26 million for alleged consulting services not rendered.

The court assessed the timing and frequency of the deliveries as key elements to conclude that there was a persistent harassment campaign, and deemed the documentation provided by the defense insufficient to justify Chen's economic claims.

Procedure: lawsuit in March and trial this week

Ho filed her injunction request in March 2026 before the High Court of Hong Kong. The case culminated in the hearing that led to the ruling issued this week by Judge Grace Chow Chiu-man. The court reviewed the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by both parties and determined the need for a permanent remedy given the continuation of the alleged harassment.

The remedy includes the contact prohibition and the order for compensation for moral damages and reputational harm of HK$1.8 million (US$229,500). The decision not only requires the defendant to cease the behavior but also sets a procedural precedent regarding the judicial response to the mass sending of defamatory communications against public figures and companies in Hong Kong.

Impact on the mentioned companies: MGM China and Shun Tak Holdings

MGM China and Shun Tak Holdings appeared as the delivery locations for the correspondence sent by Chen. First, MGM China is cited in the case as the company whose executives were the subjects of the letters claiming a job promise. Secondly, Shun Tak Holdings was mentioned because Chen left correspondence at their offices, a company where Pansy Ho is Group Executive Chairman and Managing Director.

No part of the ruling implies corporate liability on the part of MGM China or Shun Tak Holdings: the legal action targeted the person who, according to the court, exhibited the harassing behavior. The trial situates in the record the use of corporate offices and the family residence of the deceased Maisy Ho as specific targets of the communications.

What executives and legal departments in the sector should consider

For legal and compliance teams in operators and business groups based in Hong Kong, the case offers three practical lessons:

1. document and preserve any communications received that allege verbal agreements or job promises;

2. consider early filing for injunctions when there is a repetitive pattern of harmful communications;

3. coordinate public and private responses with communications and security departments, especially when the correspondence includes threats to make accusations public.

The economic ruling of HK$1.8 million and the contact prohibition serve as a guide regarding the type of remedy the High Court is willing to grant in harassment situations directed against executives and their companies.

Media context and journalistic procedure

The original report on the ruling was published by the South China Morning Post. Judicial coverage in Hong Kong typically quotes court decisions verbatim; in this case, the press reproduced Justice Grace Chow Chiu-man's statement about the lack of written evidence from the defense and the existence of sufficient evidence provided by the plaintiff.

The case reinforces the sensitivity of the Hong Kong environment to campaigns of public accusations and the recourse to the courts to protect the reputation and personal safety of high executives.