Hong Kong court bars woman from contacting MGM China chair Pansy Ho

Hong Kong’s High Court has issued a permanent injunction against Steffi Chen Pan-yu after finding that she repeatedly harassed businesswoman Pansy Ho and made false allegations. Chen was also ordered to pay HK$1.8 million in damages. The court said the conduct caused continuing distress and harm to Ho.
Hong Kong’s High Court has permanently barred a woman from contacting businesswoman Pansy Ho Chiu-king after finding that she had pursued a repeated course of harassment against Ho, her family and business associates. The court also ordered Steffi Chen Pan-yu, a former licensed broker, to pay Ho HK$1.8 million (US$229,000) in damages. The judgment was handed down on Wednesday.
Ho, chairwoman and executive director of MGM China Holdings and group executive chairwoman and managing director of Shun Tak Holdings, said she had never met Chen and did not know her. Chen had alleged that Ho falsely promised her a senior position at MGM China. According to the judgment, Chen contacted Ho and her companies over about a year from March 2025.
She delivered letters to Ho’s Shun Tak office, MGM China’s Hong Kong branch and, in October 2025, the home of Ho’s late sister, Maisy Ho Chiu-ha. Chen also instructed a law firm to send a demand to Ho’s lawyers. She sought, among other claims, HK$21.26 million for consultancy services and an employment offer that she said had not materialised.
She threatened to publicise the allegations if her demands were not met. Deputy High Court Judge Grace Chow Chiu-man said Chen had failed to provide written evidence supporting her defence. Chen represented herself at a hearing and argued that Ho had not properly brought the civil action.
The judge rejected those complaints, saying Ho had supplied sufficient evidence that Chen had harassed and intimidated her. Chow said Chen showed a propensity to contact Ho and people connected to her to make false allegations, causing ongoing distress and harm. Because Chen failed to file a defence within the statutory deadline, the court ruled that it had jurisdiction to grant the permanent injunction.
This independently written report is based on information supplied by the named publisher. Vertrix News has not independently verified the source report.