Case 6003109/2025 · Employment Tribunal
- IN PERSON FOR THE v - Ms G Williams ( Solicitor) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6003109/2025
- Decision date
- 15 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
- IN PERSON FOR THE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim of unfair dismissal after being dismissed by Lidl Great Britain Ltd for misconduct. The dispute concerned the claimant altering electronic break-time records for customer assistants, where the altered entries made the breaks appear Working Time Regulations compliant and, unless corrected, could have caused underpayment for time actually worked.
The tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to treat the alterations as misconduct and to conclude that the claimant had deliberately manipulated or falsified records. It accepted that the disciplinary and appeal decision-makers acted within the range of reasonable responses when rejecting the claimant's explanations, including his appeal-stage contention that he had been instructed to alter the records.
The tribunal found no procedural error bearing on the outcome or fairness of the dismissal. It concluded that dismissal fell within the range reasonably open to the respondent and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.