A UK employment tribunal has ruled that limited online shopping or browsing during work hours is not sufficient grounds for dismissal, in a case that could reshape how employers monitor staff and enforce workplace discipline.
The case centers on an accountancy administrator, identified in court papers as Ms. A. Lanuszka, who was dismissed in July 2023 after her employer installed spyware on her computer and discovered she had spent time browsing websites including Amazon and Rightmove. Her employer, Accountancy MK, argued that such behavior constituted misconduct.
However, Employment Judge Michael Magee found that the dismissal was unfair, ruling that the amount of personal browsing was minor and not in breach of any workplace policy. He also criticized the employer’s actions, awarding Ms. Lanuszka more than £14,000 in compensation for wrongful dismissal.
Background of the Case
Ms. Lanuszka began working at the firm in 2017 and later signed a new contract in September 2021 when the company changed its name under the ownership of Ms. Krauze. The employment relationship deteriorated in mid-2023, when spyware was installed on Ms. Lanuszka’s work computer to track her activity.
Records showed that on two specific days in July 2023, she had spent approximately one hour and 24 minutes on personal browsing. This included checking property listings and making purchases online.
Despite the limited time involved, her employer considered this excessive and moved to terminate her contract. However, Judge Magee noted that there was no explicit policy prohibiting personal use of company computers, and evidence showed that the employer herself had engaged in similar behavior.
Tribunal’s Findings
In his judgment, Judge Magee emphasized several key points:
- Limited browsing is not misconduct: Less than an hour spent browsing during work hours did not constitute “gross misconduct” or grounds for dismissal.
- Double standards: The employer also used company computers for personal matters, undermining the argument that Ms. Lanuszka’s behavior was unacceptable.
- Lack of clear policies: No workplace rules or employee handbooks were presented to show that personal browsing was prohibited.
- Suspicious timing: The dismissal coincided with the permanent relocation of the business owner’s sister to the UK. The judge suggested that the dismissal was motivated more by internal business changes than by Ms. Lanuszka’s conduct.
- Retrospective evidence: Diary entries submitted by the employer to suggest ongoing performance problems were discredited, as they were written in 2024—after the dismissal had already taken place.
The tribunal concluded that Ms. Lanuszka was dismissed unfairly before reaching her two-year service threshold, the point at which UK law grants employees stronger protections against unfair dismissal.
The Compensation
As a result of the ruling, Ms. Lanuszka was awarded over £14,000 in damages. The tribunal recognized not only the financial loss she suffered but also the reputational harm caused by being accused of misconduct without justification.
Legal experts note that this decision reinforces the principle that employers cannot use surveillance tools or vague allegations of misconduct as a shortcut to dismiss staff, especially in the absence of written rules and consistent enforcement.
Broader Implications for UK Workplaces
This ruling could have significant implications across the UK, where remote and hybrid work has blurred the boundaries between professional and personal time. Many employees occasionally browse online during breaks or slower periods at work. Employment lawyers suggest that unless such activity is excessive, disruptive, or explicitly banned by workplace policy, it is unlikely to justify dismissal.
Furthermore, the case raises questions about the use of spyware in workplaces. While employers may have the right to monitor computer use, they must balance this with transparency, fairness, and respect for privacy. Covert surveillance, especially when used selectively, can undermine trust and damage employee morale.
This case reveals more than just a dispute over a few minutes of online shopping—it highlights the evolving relationship between employees and employers in the digital workplace. Surveillance technologies now give managers unprecedented insight into how employees spend their time, but this power can easily be abused if not balanced by fairness and transparency.
For employees, the case is a reassurance that occasional personal use of work devices is not inherently wrong. Modern work culture recognizes that strict separation between personal and professional life is increasingly unrealistic, especially in hybrid or office environments where employees are expected to be constantly available.
For employers, the ruling serves as a caution. Rather than relying on punitive measures or covert monitoring, firms should focus on clear policies, open communication, and trust-building. Attempting to dismiss staff for minor lapses not only risks legal defeat but also damages workplace morale and loyalty.
Ultimately, the tribunal’s decision reinforces a core principle of employment law: fairness. Dismissal should be a last resort, reserved for serious misconduct or clear breaches of policy—not for human moments of distraction. If organizations fail to recognize this balance, they risk not only legal penalties but also the erosion of trust that underpins any successful workplace.