Julian Oxborough Lidl dismissal upheld after employee drank 17p bottle of water

A long-serving supermarket employee was lawfully dismissed after consuming a 17p bottle of water left at a checkout, an employment tribunal has ruled. The case, brought by Julian Oxborough, centred on whether his actions amounted to gross misconduct or were an honest mistake driven by dehydration.

What happened at the till

The incident took place on 19 July 2024 (ET) at a branch in Wincanton. A customer removed a single bottle from a multipack that lacked a barcode and swapped it for another bottle with a barcode, leaving the unpackaged bottle at the till. Later the same day, Oxborough drank from that abandoned bottle and used it to top up his personal drink while continuing to serve customers.

The following day, a manager found the discarded bottle near the checkout and, after reviewing CCTV, initiated a disciplinary meeting. Oxborough was suspended and the store opened an investigation into alleged gross misconduct.

Disciplinary process and tribunal ruling

During the investigation, an area manager questioned Oxborough about why he had not followed procedures for writing off unpaid stock and why he had chosen to drink that bottle rather than use tap water. The manager said Oxborough gave inconsistent accounts about whether he intended to buy the bottle, have it written off, or simply drink it in the moment. She also noted he had four days after the incident to report the matter and had not come forward.

Employment Judge Yallop heard the case at a tribunal in Southampton in October 2025 (ET) and concluded that the employer’s decision to dismiss was fair. The judge found that inconsistent explanations and the lack of assurance the behaviour would not recur left the employer with no suitable alternative to summary dismissal for gross misconduct.

A spokesperson for the retailer said the company does not take dismissing a long-serving colleague lightly and that a consistent zero-tolerance approach to consumption of unpaid stock is essential to operations. The spokesperson added the tribunal upheld that the process had been thorough and fair.

Claimant’s defence and workplace implications

Oxborough, who had worked at the store for more than a decade, maintained he had no dishonest intent. He told the tribunal he had become dehydrated during his shift, had made his personal squash too concentrated to drink, and was feeling tired, stressed and unwell. He also said he had been worried about contracting Covid from a household contact and was in a hurry to catch a bus at the end of his shift.

He admitted he could not remember whether he had paid for the bottle or taken it without paying, and acknowledged it was wrong in hindsight. He described his dismissal as "a huge overreaction. " The tribunal, however, concluded that the employer had acted within reasonable bounds given its policies and the employee’s inconsistent explanations.

The case highlights the tensions employers face when enforcing strict loss-prevention rules against long-serving staff who say their actions were born of momentary need. Employers and staff alike are likely to regard this ruling as a reminder of the importance of clear, consistently applied procedures for handling unbarcoded or donated stock and for how employees should raise health concerns during a shift.

For Oxborough, the tribunal decision ends his unfair dismissal claim, leaving questions about workplace welfare, communication and reasonable accommodations for staff who experience sudden health issues while on duty.