header-logo header-logo

19 January 2016
Issue: 7683 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Employers can read private messages

Lawyers have offered reassurance in the wake of a Strasbourg ruling on private messages sent at work.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled, in Barbulescu v Romania (App. 61496/08), that employers can read personal messages sent by employees at work, whether on email, WhatsApp, Facebook or other services. Mihai Barbulescu, a Romanian engineer, was dismissed for making private use of his employer’s Yahoo Messenger account during work hours and in breach of company rules. He had been notified that his communications could be monitored. The court rejected argument that his Art 8 rights had been breached, finding that a fair balance had been reached between his right to respect for his private life and correspondence and his employer’s interests.

Makbool Javaid, head of employment law at Simons Muirhead and Burton, says: “Some reports in the media that this judgment gives the green light for an employer’s ‘snooper’s charter’ are wide of the mark.

“This case is fact specific and the bottom line is that Art 8 did apply, but it was proved that in the circumstances the right could be restricted.”

Nick Hawkins, solicitor at Stewarts Law, says: “The decision has caused something of a stir, with it being suggested in some areas that this has given employers carte blanche to rummage through employees private communications. It has not.

“It is not new that employers are able to access their employees’ private storage devices to retrieve their confidential material, in an effort to protect their business interests.”

Kathryn Dooks, employment partner at Kemp Little, says the decision is“actually broadly in line with existing English employment tribunals decisions in this area”.

Sarah Rushton, employment partner at Moon Beever, says: “There is a common misconception that employees have an absolute right to privacy at work.

“However, employers can legitimately review private emails sent over their workplace systems if appropriate safeguards are put in place. An employer may have a genuine concern that its systems are being abused, either by excessive use for private purposes or for nefarious reasons. The moral of the story is for employers to have appropriate policies in place for dealing with this.”

Issue: 7683 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll