Tribunal upholds dismissal after worker drank unpaid 17p bottle of water
A tribunal has rejected a long-running unfair dismissal claim by a checkout worker who drank a 17p bottle of water he had not paid for while on shift, finding the employer was entitled to dismiss him for gross misconduct.
How the incident unfolded
On July 19, 2024 (ET), a member of staff at a supermarket branch in Wincanton served a customer who had removed a single bottle from a multipack. The individual swapped that bottle for an identical one with a barcode and left the unbarcoded bottle at the checkout. Later in the shift the checkout worker drank from the abandoned bottle and used it to top up his own drink while continuing to serve customers.
The next day a manager located the bottle beside the till and, after reviewing CCTV footage, suspended the employee pending an investigation into an allegation of gross misconduct. The worker, who had served at the branch for more than a decade, said he had been dehydrated and concerned for his health during the shift and insisted he had no intention to be dishonest.
Worker's defence and employer's account
In interviews the employee said he believed the multipack bottle could be written off if necessary, and that he had asked himself whether he had paid but could not recall doing so. He told the tribunal he had been rushed at the end of his shift, needed to catch a bus, and had not volunteered the matter within a short window after the incident.
Management said the worker’s explanations were inconsistent about whether he had meant to pay for the bottle or have it written off, and that he had failed to explain why he did not use tap water. The disciplinary officer handling the case stated that, given the worker’s knowledge of company procedures and the lack of assurance the conduct would not be repeated, dismissal was the only appropriate sanction.
Tribunal ruling and wider implications
At a hearing in Southampton in October 2025 (ET), the employment judge upheld the employer’s decision and dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal. The tribunal found the dismissal proportionate in light of the employer’s zero-tolerance stance on taking goods without payment and the specifics of the worker’s account and conduct.
it did not take the decision to dismiss a long-serving colleague lightly and that a thorough process had been followed. The case — often referred to in searches as julian oxborough lidl dismissal — highlights the difficult balance tribunals and employers face when minor-value incidents intersect with workplace rules on honesty and trust.
Employment lawyers note that tribunals assess both the facts of the incident and the employer’s disciplinary process. Where an employer can demonstrate consistent policies, clear procedures and a fair investigation, dismissal can be upheld even for misconduct involving items of low monetary value when trust and honesty are central to the role.
For staff, the case underlines the importance of following internal reporting procedures promptly if an error occurs, and for employers it reinforces the need to apply disciplinary policies consistently while considering mitigating circumstances such as health or fatigue when making sanction decisions.
