“Dragon Porn” at Work? No. A Fantasy Audiobook and a Boss Who Read 30 Pages of Private Messages.

6 March 2026 • By Tom Street, Solicitor

The headlines write themselves on this one. A finance administrator accused of accessing “pornographic content” at work because she listened to a fantasy audiobook and joked about it on WhatsApp. But behind the quirky headline, Coleman v Thermoelectric Conversion Systems Ltd (Case No. 4102789/2025) is a textbook example of how employers can turn a trivial, private conversation into a full-blown constructive dismissal claim.

And honestly, the employer here made just about every mistake in the book.

What Actually Happened

Kirsty Coleman worked as a finance administrator at Thermoelectric Conversion Systems (TCS), a small heat pump manufacturer in Clydebank, from September 2022. Staff at TCS had been asked to download their personal WhatsApp accounts onto their work computers. Coleman did so.

On 31 May 2025, the managing director, Dr Siviter, logged into Coleman’s computer using administrative access to find a spreadsheet. When WhatsApp opened, he noticed messages where Coleman described a colleague as “just so rude it’s unbelievable.” Instead of closing the application and finding his spreadsheet, Dr Siviter kept reading. He trawled through roughly 30 pages of Coleman’s private conversations.

Among the messages, Coleman had told a colleague: “I am listening to my book and it has just got steamy (again).” Her colleague replied: “haha oh ur big dragon porn.” The book was a widely available fantasy novel. Staff were permitted to listen to audiobooks at work. Everyone in the office knew Coleman was an avid reader of fantasy fiction.

Dr Siviter and the company’s directors decided this was a potential breach of the company internet policy. Coleman was suspended on 3 June for gross misconduct. The allegations? Threats against a colleague (a private, tongue-in-cheek rant to a friend about an annoying coworker who kept slamming a door), “pornographic content” (the audiobook), disruptive behaviour, and misuse of company equipment.

A Disciplinary Process That Was Doomed from the Start

What followed was a disciplinary process riddled with problems. The suspension letter doubled as the invite to the hearing, gave Coleman only vague, broad allegations, and provided no specific evidence. When Coleman requested full disclosure, the company eventually sent her screenshots of her own WhatsApp messages, along with a note written by one of the directors that stated, in terms, that her behaviour “warrants dismissal.”

Think about that. Before the disciplinary hearing had even taken place, the employer had told Coleman in writing that they believed she was guilty of gross misconduct and that dismissal was justified. The tribunal found this was not an unreasonable conclusion for Coleman to draw: the decision had already been made.

Coleman’s union representative, who was also a trainee solicitor, was told by the company he could only “support” Coleman at the hearing, not speak on her behalf. That’s wrong. Under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, a companion has the right to address the hearing, put and sum up the worker’s case, and respond on the worker’s behalf to any views expressed.

On the day of the hearing, the representative presented his union card, driving licence, and an email from his union confirming his certification. The technical director refused to accept this information and insisted on taking the documents away to “verify” them. When the representative declined to hand them over, he was barred from entering. Coleman was told the hearing could proceed without him.

Coleman handed in her resignation letter instead.

What the Tribunal Decided

Employment Judge David Hoey found that Coleman had been constructively unfairly dismissed. The judge was blunt about the employer’s conduct, finding the decision to read Coleman’s private messages was “wholly unreasonable and entirely without justification.”

On the “pornographic content” allegation, the judge noted there was no fair basis for the claim. Staff were permitted to listen to audiobooks, the book in question was widely available, and the employer had relied on nothing more than a joking WhatsApp exchange.

Interestingly, the tribunal could not formally rule on whether reading the WhatsApp messages was unlawful, as that falls outside its jurisdiction. Because Coleman’s legal team had framed the first three allegations specifically around unlawfulness rather than unreasonableness, those elements of the claim did not succeed on their own terms. The judge acknowledged this was a narrow technical distinction, noting he would not have found the employer’s arguments persuasive had the issue been framed differently.

What did succeed was the fourth ground: the employer’s refusal to allow Coleman’s companion to attend and exercise his statutory rights under section 10, combined with the earlier incorrect statement that the companion could only “support” Coleman. The tribunal found this destroyed trust and confidence. Coleman was awarded approximately £8,000, including a 25% uplift for the employer’s failure to follow the Acas Code.

The Wider Lessons

There are three takeaways from this case that go well beyond audiobooks and dragons.

First, private messages are private. The fact that WhatsApp was downloaded onto a work computer didn’t give TCS the right to read 30 pages of personal conversations. The tribunal was clear: Dr Siviter had a legitimate reason to access the machine (finding a spreadsheet), but that did not justify reading obviously personal messages. Employers who ask staff to download personal apps onto work devices need to think carefully about where the boundary lies.

Second, don’t write the conclusion before the hearing. Telling an employee in writing that their conduct amounts to gross misconduct “which warrants dismissal,” before the disciplinary hearing has taken place, is about as damaging as it gets. The whole point of a disciplinary hearing is to give the employee a fair chance to respond. If you’ve already decided the outcome, you haven’t given them that chance.

Third, understand companion rights. Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 isn’t complicated. A companion can address the hearing, put and sum up the worker’s case, and respond on their behalf. They cannot answer questions on behalf of the worker. That’s it. TCS got this wrong twice: first in writing, then on the day. That was the final straw that tipped this case.