For over a decade, Julian Oxborough was a familiar face at the Wincanton Lidl store. His long tenure ended abruptly, however, over a single bottle of water taken in July of last year, triggering a chain of events that culminated in his dismissal.
The following day, a store manager discovered the empty bottle near a checkout. Initial concern centered on a potential breach of company policy regarding the consumption of products.
The incident began when a customer cleverly swapped a multipack bottle for one with a barcode, leaving the original, opened bottle at the checkout. This seemingly small act set in motion a formal investigation.
Julian was soon called to a meeting and suspended pending an investigation into allegations of gross misconduct. He explained he’d been feeling dehydrated during his shift and concerned for his health, admitting he hadn’t even drunk from his own water bottle due to an overly concentrated squash mix.
He believed the multipack bottle could be written off, recalling seeing similar single bottles discarded in the canteen without receipts. When directly asked if he’d paid for the water, Julian confessed to a hazy recollection, stating he thought he might have forgotten or simply didn’t remember taking it.
Pressed further, he acknowledged being rushed at the end of his shift and failing to properly request the water be written off. While admitting his actions were wrong in hindsight, he maintained he had no intention of being dishonest.
The employment tribunal heard Julian felt his dismissal was a disproportionate response. However, the tribunal ultimately sided with Lidl, rejecting his claim of unfair dismissal.
Karina Moon, the area manager overseeing the disciplinary process, highlighted inconsistencies in Julian’s explanations. She questioned why he hadn’t simply obtained tap water and noted his four-day delay in coming forward with information.
Moon concluded that Julian was fully aware of the correct procedures and, without assurance of future compliance, dismissal was the only appropriate course of action. The decision to summarily dismiss him for gross misconduct was confirmed.
Julian testified that his actions weren’t driven by dishonesty, but by a confluence of factors: fatigue, stress, heat, thirst, feeling unwell, and worry about potential Covid exposure from his partner. He was also under pressure to catch a bus at the end of his shift.
In October 2025, Employment Judge Yallop in Southampton upheld Lidl’s decision, dismissing all of Julian’s claims, including the claim of unfair dismissal.
Lidl representatives stated that dismissing a long-serving employee is never taken lightly and that the tribunal’s decision validated their thorough process. They emphasized the necessity of a strict zero-tolerance policy regarding the consumption of unpaid stock to maintain operational consistency and fairness.
The case underscores the rigid adherence to policy, even in seemingly minor instances, within large retail organizations and the potential consequences for employees.
