Worker Fired for Shopping Online at Lunch Break Wins £14,000 — Judge Says Boss 'Used Spyware to Sack Her'

A UK employee has won more than £14,000 in compensation after an employment tribunal ruled that she was unfairly dismissed for shopping online during work hours, with the judge concluding that her employer had secretly installed spyware to monitor her activity without proper grounds or procedure. The case, Lanuszka v Accountancy MK Services Ltd, was reported by People Management and has quickly become a landmark example of how UK law governs workplace surveillance and employee privacy.

The claimant, Lanuszka, was dismissed after her employer recorded that she spent just over an hour browsing websites such as Amazon and Very over a two-day period. Her employer claimed this amounted to gross misconduct. However, the tribunal found that the company had secretly used spyware to track her computer usage and had failed to follow any fair disciplinary procedure or issue prior warnings.

Evidence presented in court showed that some of the browsing had occurred during quiet periods and breaks, and that no clear company policy had been communicated to Lanuszka prohibiting reasonable personal use of the internet. Furthermore, the tribunal found that the employer had incorrectly assumed she had less than two years' continuous service — a critical detail, as UK employment law protects employees with over two years' service from unfair dismissal unless strict procedures are followed..

Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, a dismissal must be fair in both reason and process. The tribunal ruled that neither standard was met. The judge criticised the employer's use of covert monitoring, stating it breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, and that the dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair.

This case has prompted wider discussion about whether employees can be lawfully dismissed for personal internet use and what rights workers have regarding online privacy. Surveillance software is increasingly being installed on workplace computers, particularly in hybrid and remote roles. But UK law is clear: employers must inform employees if monitoring is taking place, have a legitimate business justification, and apply disciplinary action consistently and proportionately.

There have been previous cases in which employees were dismissed for internet browsing but later won their claims because their employers failed to follow due process or had effectively tolerated occasional personal use. In a related case reported by Business Matters Magazine, judges found that checking personal websites occasionally during breaks or quiet periods does not automatically amount to misconduct if not explicitly banned by company policy.

The outcome of this case highlights a key principle: UK employment law does not allow employers to terminate staff solely based on personal browsing, unless clear policies have been breached and a fair procedure has been followed. Dismissal based on covert surveillance, without transparency or warning, is likely to be ruled unlawful.

With spyware tools becoming more commonplace and workers raising privacy concerns on platforms such as Reddit, where users warn that new work laptops may come preloaded with monitoring software, this judgement sends a strong signal: employers cannot spy first and justify later.

In awarding compensation, the tribunal reinforced that technology does not override employment law. Even in an age of constant monitoring, workers retain fundamental rights — and employers who cross the line may find themselves paying the price.