About us

Greene & Greene is a long established firm of solicitors based in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk. Our lawyers advise individuals and businesses based all over the UK.

We regularly attract new clients who have been using firms in London, but now receive a more cost efficient and more personal service from us here in Bury St Edmunds.

agr (1) Agriculture & Farming (9) Arbitration (2) Articles (11) Bribery Act (1) Business (36) Business Law (2) Charity (1) Charity Fundraising (9) Children Issues (10) Cohabitation (11) Collaborative Law (4) Commercial (9) Commercial Property (12) Compromise Agreements (5) Construction Law (1) Consumer (3) Contracts (2) Copyright (1) Corporate and M&A (18) Corporate Finance (7) Debt Recovery (2) Defamation (1) Development Rights (1) Dispute Resolution (48) Disputed Wills (6) Divorce (14) Divorce and Separation (27) Education (1) Employment (43) Employment Advice (23) Employment Law (31) Employment Rights (15) Employment Tribunal (14) Environment Agency Prosecutions (2) Environmental Law (5) Expert Witnesses (1) Family Businesses (6) Family Law (35) Family Mediation (9) fFamily Mediation (1) Freedom Workshop (1) GDPR (1) General (14) Health & Safety (2) Inheritance Tax (2) Insolvency & Bankruptcy (1) Insurance (3) Intellectual Property (4) Landlord & Tenant (7) Lasting Powers of Attorney (4) Lawyers (3) Legal Update (6) Letter of Claim (2) Marriage (11) Motoring (12) Pension (1) Personal Affairs (13) Personal Injury (9) Pre-nuptial Agreements (5) Professional Advisers (4) Professional Negligence (3) Profile (2) Property (18) Property Disputes (18) Redundancies (7) Renewable Energy (2) Residential Conveyancing (8) Scams (1) Selling (1) Selling Company (1) Seminar (2) Small Claims (1) SME (1) Social Media (2) Tax (5) Tax Planning (6) Terms and Conditions (2) Trusts (6) UKELA (1) Unfair Dismissal (5) Wills & Estates (14) Wind Farm (2) Workshop (2) wWills & Estates (1)



Monthly Archives

Entries in Social Media (2)


Can employers read employees’ private correspondence?

Earlier this month the media reported that a decision of the European Court of Human Rights has given employers the green light to snoop on employees’ personal emails. 

The case was brought by a Mr Barbulescu, a heating engineer who had been asked by his employer to set up a Yahoo Messenger account to deal with customer enquiries.  He was instructed not to use the account for personal correspondence and that his employer might monitor messages.  Mr Barbulescu used the account to send intimate messages to his fiancée. He was dismissed for unauthorised use of the internet.  Having unsuccessfully challenged his dismissal in the Romanian Courts he took the Romanian Government to the European Court, arguing that it had failed to protect his right, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to be able to correspond in private without “big brother watching you”. 

Whilst the Court dismissed Mr Barbulescu’s case, it definitely did not give employers carte blanche to read employees’ private correspondence.  Instead it decided that if employees have a “reasonable expectation” that correspondence is private, the employer should not read it. Even if there is no such expectation, employers should only read private correspondence if there is good reason to do so. 

So where does this leave us?  Barbulescu’s employer had instructed employees that Yahoo Messenger accounts were to be used only for business purposes.  It warned employees that it would monitor messages. Both points were critical to the success of its defence. 

The Barbulescu case reflects my own experience in local Employment Tribunals.  Last year I advised a client who had looked at its employees’ Yahoo Messenger accounts following a third party report that its employees were leaking confidential information.  In doing so it discovered that one of its senior employees had sent messages to colleagues in an apparent effort to undermine his employer.  He and others had exchanged inappropriate sexual comments about female colleagues.  It was clear that Yahoo Messenger was meant to be used for work.  I advised that the suggestion of a leak gave my client good reason to look at employees’ messages.  I advised that the offensive messages gave good grounds to dismiss for gross misconduct.  The employees were dismissed.  One of them claimed unfair dismissal, in particular that the messages were private “banter” and not any concern of the employer. The Tribunal gave very short shrift to his arguments, dismissing his case and ordering both him and his lawyer to pay our legal costs.  

The Barbulescu case implies that employers who give the right instructions and warnings can lawfully monitor messages and can discipline employees, both for breaching instructions and for what they say in correspondence.  The case also implies that employers that do not give such clear instructions and warnings may not be able to monitor or discipline.  Whilst disputes are not always that simple, our advice is very simple; give instructions and warnings to your employees, in writing, now.  We can help with the wording and with the process to implement it.  In doing so you are not saying that you want to snoop; these days most employees have smart phones, if they must correspond in private during working hours they can use their phones, not the employer’s internet. What you are doing is ensuring that if you do discover something that makes you want to end an employment relationship, you can. 

For further advice on the above or other Employment issues please contact Chris Thomson, Senior Partner at Greene & Greene (christhomson@greene-greene.com / telephone 01284 717412).  For more information on Greene & Greene please view www.greene-greene.com and follow @greenegreenelaw.



Many a careless word can amount to defamation or contempt of Court

The Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC MP, has recently issued guidance to Facebook and Twitter users with the aim of helping those who post on social media sites to avoid inadvertently or deliberately prejudicing criminal trials and thus ending up facing proceedings for contempt of Court. This guidance and its media coverage has, once again, drawn attention to the risks associated with the posting of ill-judged comments on such websites.

Over the course of the last year, reflecting the pattern of the last few years, we have handled a number of defamation cases that have arisen from the use of social media. Posters often seek to criticise or comment about individuals in the complete absence of any factual basis for the views they are expressing and thus defaming their victims. Our recent experience also suggests that there is a trend towards using postings in an attempt, and a poorly thought out one at that, to pressurise defendants into making concessions in Court proceedings.

One Client experienced this very recently when it came to light that postings were being made on Facebook at the same time as defamatory comments were being made elsewhere, all while the Client was defending a contractual claim by the poster. Within a week of our involvement we had negotiated a full apology and had secured the discontinuance of the contractual claim against the Client. In view of the speed with which the matter was resolved the Client elected not to press for damages and costs but could legitimately have done so.

Those who make careless postings on social media sites need to beware that defamation proceedings can be extremely expensive and time consuming and if they are found to be in contempt of Court they could be facing a prison sentence of up to 2 years.

Please contact Michael Batty on 01284 717414 ~ michaelbatty@greene-greene.com or Andrea Nicholls on 01284 717531 ~ andreanicholls@greene-greene.com for more information.