Julian Oxborough Lidl dismissal upheld after worker drank 17p bottle of water during shift

A tribunal has rejected an unfair dismissal claim from a long-serving supermarket employee who drank a 17p bottle of water at work, finding the employer’s decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was fair. The case centred on whether the worker intended to pay for the bottle or had simply acted out of immediate need during a shift on July 19, 2024 (ET).

What unfolded at the till

Julian Oxborough, who had worked at the store for more than a decade, was serving a customer who removed a bottle of water from a multipack that did not carry a barcode. The customer swapped it for a barcoded bottle and left the original at the checkout. Later that same shift, Oxborough drank from the unpriced bottle and used it to top up his own drink while continuing to serve customers.

The following day, a manager found the discarded bottle near the checkout. CCTV footage showed Oxborough handling and consuming the item, prompting an internal investigation and a suspension while the employer considered allegations of gross misconduct.

Disciplinary hearing and tribunal finding

During the disciplinary process, Oxborough explained that he felt dehydrated and was concerned for his health, saying he had made his squash too strong earlier and could not drink his own supply. He also said he believed the unbarcoded single bottle could be written off, having seen similar items in the staff canteen without receipts.

When asked whether he had paid for the bottle, Oxborough told investigators: "No, I think I may have forgot or can't actually remember taking it. " He later described his dismissal as "a huge overreaction, " and reiterated at tribunal that he had no intention of being dishonest, citing fatigue, stress, illness and the need to catch a bus after his shift.

The employer’s disciplinary officer noted inconsistencies in Oxborough’s account about whether he intended to pay for the bottle or intended to have it written off. The officer also asked why tap water was not sought as an alternative, and highlighted that Oxborough had a window of several days after the incident in which he might have volunteered an explanation but did not. The disciplinary decision concluded there was no assurance the behaviour would not recur and that summary dismissal was the only suitable sanction.

An Employment Tribunal in Southampton later reviewed the facts and evidence and dismissed Oxborough’s claim for unfair dismissal at a hearing in October 2025 (ET), finding the employer had followed a reasonable and thorough process when taking the decision to sack him.

Employer stance and worker’s response

The employer emphasised that the decision to dismiss a long-serving colleague was not taken lightly, pointing to a consistent zero-tolerance approach to the consumption of unpaid stock as essential to store operations. The disciplinary record and testimony were cited in support of maintaining clear rules for staff conduct at tills.

Oxborough maintained that his actions were driven by immediate health concerns and stress rather than deliberate theft. He said he had not meant to be dishonest and that he accepted it was wrong in hindsight.

The tribunal’s ruling underscores the balance employers and tribunals must strike between enforcing loss-prevention rules and considering staff welfare. In this case, the panel concluded the employer’s response was proportionate given the evidence and Oxborough’s inconsistent explanations during the internal process.