header-logo header-logo

27 September 2007 / Navdeep Gill
Issue: 7290 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Getting personal

Employees should be wary of storing too much personal information on work computers, says Navdeep Gill

Employees will need to consider how much personal use they make of their employers’ computer systems after the recent High Court case of PennWell Publishing (UK) Ltd v Isles and others [2007] EWHC 1570 (QB), [2007] All ER (D) 180 (Jun). It was held that an employee’s contacts kept on the employer’s computer system belonged to the employer and not the employee. This was despite the fact that some of the information included personal contacts of the employee and contacts that predated his employment.

PERSONAL CONTACTS

The case involved a journalist, Junior Isles, employed by PennWell, a media company organising conferences and exhibitions for the energy and power industry. Isles was employed by PennWell as a publisher and conference chairman. When Isles joined PennWell he brought with him a list of journalistic and personal contacts he had accumulated throughout his career. During his time at PennWell, Isles gradually transferred these contacts to PennWell’s system and maintained it on PennWell’s Microsoft Outlook programme, adding to it as necessary.
In 2005, Isles

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll