15-year employee dismissed for selling knife to police test purchaser: dismissal fair
A customer service assistant with 15 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after selling a knife to a 16-year-old police test purchaser without checking ID. The tribunal upheld Wilko's decision, finding the dismissal within the range of reasonable responses.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #age-restricted-sale
- #challenge-25-policy
- #police-test-purchase
- #gross-misconduct
- #summary-dismissal
Key facts
- The claimant sold a knife to a 16-year-old police test purchaser on 30 April 2021.
- The claimant had 15 years' service and a clean disciplinary record.
- The respondent's Challenge 25 policy required staff to ask for ID unless the customer was clearly over 25.
- The claimant admitted the sale but said she judged the customer to be over 25.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing.
- The appeal upheld the dismissal, acknowledging some procedural flaws.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as a customer service assistant at Wilko's Wellingborough store.
-
Annual retail law training
Claimant completed training on age-restricted sales, scoring 100%.
-
Incident
Claimant sold a knife to a 16-year-old police test purchaser at 17:49, clearing the till prompt by selecting 'Customer clearly over 25'.
-
Investigation meeting
Claimant attended an investigation with store manager Kirsten Mclean, admitted the sale, and was suspended on full pay.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
Katrina Dorrian chaired the hearing; claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct, effective immediately.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed, citing procedural flaws and severity of sanction.
-
First appeal hearing
Adam Gray chaired; claimant was accompanied by a union rep. Hearing adjourned for further investigation.
-
Second appeal hearing
Further evidence considered; Gray did not believe claimant had properly checked age.
-
Appeal dismissed
Gray upheld the dismissal, noting procedural flaws did not affect the outcome.
-
Claim presented
Claimant filed an unfair dismissal claim to the employment tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether Wilko acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for gross misconduct after she sold a knife to a 16-year-old without checking ID, considering the adequacy of the investigation, the fairness of the procedure, and whether dismissal was a proportionate penalty.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, ruling that Wilko acted fairly.
- The tribunal found that the claimant deliberately breached the Challenge 25 policy by selecting 'Customer clearly over 25' on the till without properly assessing the customer's age.
- Despite procedural flaws in the appeal (e.g., the appeal officer not fully considering the claimant's explanation), the tribunal held that the overall process was reasonable and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can fairly dismiss for a single breach of a clear policy if the employee knew the rule and the breach was deliberate.
- Long service and a clean record do not automatically make dismissal disproportionate if the misconduct is serious and deliberate.
- Procedural flaws in an appeal do not necessarily render a dismissal unfair if they do not affect the outcome.
- Police test purchases are a common enforcement tool; staff must follow age-check policies strictly even if they think the customer looks over 25.
A moment's misjudgement, 15 years of service
This case shows how a single lapse in judgment can cost a long-serving employee their job, even when they have an unblemished record. The claimant, a customer service assistant at Wilko for 15 years, sold a kitchen knife to a 16-year-old police test purchaser in April 2021. She did not ask for ID because she believed the customer looked over 25. However, Wilko's Challenge 25 policy requires staff to ask for ID unless the customer is clearly over 25, and the till prompt reinforces this. The claimant selected 'Customer clearly over 25' on the till, which the tribunal found to be a deliberate breach of policy.
What could Wilko have done differently?
The disciplinary and appeal processes had some procedural shortcomings. The appeal officer did not fully consider the claimant's explanation that she genuinely believed the customer was over 25. However, the tribunal accepted that the appeal officer had a genuine belief in the claimant's guilt based on the evidence, and that any flaws did not affect the outcome. The tribunal also noted that the management guidelines were not prescriptive, and Wilko had discretion to dismiss. The key lesson for employers is that while a thorough investigation and fair procedure are essential, minor procedural issues will not necessarily make a dismissal unfair if the decision was reasonable overall.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that tribunals will not substitute their own judgment for that of the employer, as long as the employer's decision falls within the 'band of reasonable responses'. Even for a long-serving employee with a clean record, a deliberate breach of a known policy on age-restricted sales can justify summary dismissal. Employees should be aware that police test purchases are a common method of enforcing age-restricted sales laws, and that failing to follow the policy—even in good faith—can have serious consequences. The case also highlights that procedural flaws in an appeal are not automatically fatal to the employer's case, provided the overall process was fair.
Similar cases
Technical manager dismissed for bypassing safety device: conduct dismissal upheld
A Technical Services Manager was fairly dismissed after bypassing an overheat stat on an air handling unit and swearing at a colleague. The tribunal found the employer's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
Long-serving postman dismissed for drink-driving: Royal Mail's decision upheld
A postman with 17 years' service was fairly dismissed after a member of the public reported him drinking alcohol from a can and driving away. The tribunal found Royal Mail's investigation and decision were reasonable.
30-year employee dismissed for gross misconduct without any disciplinary procedure: unfair dismissal
A tribunal found that Dunwood Specialties Limited unfairly dismissed a long-serving employee after failing to follow any disciplinary process, but reduced compensation by 80% because the employee would likely have been dismissed anyway.
Dismissed for stealing diesel: procedural flaws made it unfair
A Highways Maintenance Operative was unfairly dismissed after admitting to stealing diesel, but the tribunal found the investigation and disciplinary process were procedurally flawed.