header-logo header-logo

Private eye

21 March 2014 / Tom Morrison
Issue: 7599 / Categories: Features , Data protection
printer mail-detail

Tom Morrison returns with his quarterly review of the world of information law

Christmas 2013 may have become a distant memory, but any work-related party of note will have left its indelible mark somewhere on a social network. Party-goers up and down the land will have made sure that those special moments from their work dos were captured in prose on Twitter, through grainy fake Polaroids on Instagram or with amusing clips posted on YouTube. There can be few workplaces where an employee has not done something like tweeting a picture of a photocopied body part with the hashtag #mybossisanidiot or posted a video of themselves drinking vodka via their eye sockets.

The anecdote becomes somewhat less amusing for the employee if, once the alcohol-induced haze has cleared, his or her employer decides that the employee may have brought the business into disrepute because the company’s social media account was used, or the star of the video was in company uniform at the time. There is an employment law minefield to navigate, not only in relation

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll