Following our recent legal update on Pando Finance Limited v Ng Ean Kiam [2026] HKCFI 1046, where a Hong Kong court refused to enforce a 12-month non-compete clause against a senior portfolio manager in the virtual asset fund management industry, the courts have again declined to uphold a post-termination restriction (PTR) of the same duration – this time against a junior security guard.
The recent District Court decision in Harbourfield Property Management Limited v Ng Wing Chi [2026] HKDC 1421 further illustrates the practical difficulties employers may face when seeking to enforce a broad PTR, especially against junior frontline staff in the absence of a legitimate business interest warranting protection.
Facts
The defendant (the “Employee”) was employed by the plaintiff property management company (the “Company”) as a security guard. Under his contract of employment, the Employee was prohibited, for a period of 12 months after termination, from working at any building where he had been assigned during his employment with the Company (the “Relevant PTR”).
Between 2017 and 2021, the Employee was assigned by the Company to work at Tai Fu Building. After resigning, he joined another property management company and was immediately assigned to work at the same building.
The Company sued the Employee for breach of the Relevant PTR and sought damages in the sum of HK$144,000.
The decision
The court dismissed the Company’s claims and held that the Relevant PTR was unenforceable, based on the following key findings:
1. Did the Company establish a legitimate business interest requiring protection? No.
The Company argued that the Employee had developed goodwill and connections with the residents and acquired knowledge of their access habits, personal information and complaint histories, thereby giving rise to legitimate business interests requiring protection. The court rejected this argument as it was not duly pleaded and was unsupported by any witness evidence.
In any event, the court found that the Employee was a junior security guard performing low-skilled labour with no managerial or decision-making responsibilities. There was no evidence that he had access to the Company’s trade secrets, client lists, pricing information or other confidential information. Nor was there any evidence that his interactions with residents and visitors constituted a valuable asset, let alone any goodwill or customer connection capable of protection.
2. Was the absence of any geographical limitation justified? No.
The court held that the Relevant PTR effectively prevented the Employee from working at every building to which he had been assigned during his five-year employment with the Company as it contained no geographical limit.
The court held that the absence of a geographical limit to the restriction was a remarkable feature which required compelling justification. However, the Company failed to put forward any explanation (let alone compelling justification) for the absence of any geographical limit to the restriction.
3. Was the 12-month duration reasonably necessary? No.
The Company failed to adduce any evidence demonstrating that that a 12-month restraint was reasonably necessary to protect its purported business interests.
In any event, the court noted that the Employee was a junior earning a monthly salary of HK$12,000 and was subject to a notice period of only 15 days. In those circumstances, a 12-month restraint was excessive and unreasonable.
Key takeaways
While the legal principles governing PTRs are well established, this is yet another case to remind employers that a PTR is only enforceable if a legitimate, protectable business interest exists.
Without the need to protect a legitimate business interest, the PTR will likely be unenforceable – no matter how tightly the restrictions are drafted.
The judgment is available at the Judiciary’s website.
For a more detailed discussion on the relevant legal principles on PTRs, please refer to our earlier legal update titled “Hong Kong: restrictive covenants”.
