In Airbus UK Ltd v Webb, Mr Webb received a final written warning from Airbus for allegedly washing his car when he should have been working. The warning stipulated that it was to remain on his personnel file for one year. More than a year later, he was among a number of employees accused of watching television when they should have been working. He was subsequently dismissed while other employees with no prior disciplinary records were given a final warning. Mr Webb succeeded in his claim for unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal and in Airbus’ subsequent appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), as previous authorities had determined that a dismissal is unfair if the employer had taken into account an expired warning when deciding to dismiss. Airbus appealed to the Court of Appeal (CA). The CA allowed the appeal on the basis that the expired warning was not the reason for dismissal but it was relevant to why Mr Webb was dismissed. The CA held that all the circumstances of the decision to dismiss must be taken into account when considering fairness under section 98 (4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. This could include misconduct that gave rise to an expired warning. Notwithstanding this decision, employers who are considering dismissing an employee based on misconduct that forms the subject matter of an expired warning are urged to first seek legal advice, given that the ambit of the CA’s decision is relatively narrow.