Tribunal judiciaire de Lyon dismisses €180 till-shortage claim against Nora Benali

The Tribunal judiciaire de Lyon dismissed Étienne Marchal’s claim seeking a finding that Nora Benali unlawfully took €180 from a shop till and an order for repayment. The court held that Marchal established that a €180 shortage had been recorded, but not that Benali caused it.

No repayment was awarded and no further relief was granted. The formal judgment records that the shortage remained unexplained on the available evidence, rather than attributing it to Benali.

“The claim against Nora Benali is dismissed.”

• The claim against Nora Benali was dismissed.
• Étienne Marchal was not awarded €180 or any other repayment.
• The court found that a €180 shortage was recorded, but that Benali was not proven to have caused it.

The court treated the handwritten closing cash-count note as sufficient to establish that a shortage had been recorded after the Saturday closing count. It described the note as a direct written record from Marchal, consistent with the parties’ repeated submissions.

However, the note was unsigned, contained no second signature and did not set out the denominations counted. Those limitations meant it could support a finding of a recorded shortage, but not identify who was responsible for it.

The court said the timing of the shortage and Benali’s handling of the counter could raise suspicion. But it found no direct evidence that she took the cash and no reliable evidence identifying her as the person responsible.

Benali’s account of confusion during the count, a large note and shared access to the till was considered possible but general. Her WhatsApp message suggested confusion, the court found, but did not explain where the €180 went or why the count was wrong.

That gap did not assist Marchal. The court held that Benali did not have to prove an innocent explanation before Marchal had proved the key link between the shortage and her responsibility.

“The record supports the first point but not the second.”

Marchal submitted that Benali had control of the counter during her closing shift and that the till was found €180 short immediately afterwards. He relied on the handwritten closing note and sought repayment of the missing amount.

In later submissions, Marchal accepted that the record did not prove Benali personally took the cash. He maintained that it established an unexplained shortage after her shift, while acknowledging the absence of a second witness, a full denomination count and direct proof of taking.

Benali denied deliberate theft. She said the shop was busy near closing, a customer had paid with a large note, cash from the till had been used to make change, and she had alerted Marchal to a possible counting issue.

She also relied on a WhatsApp message sent at 20:18 stating: “I hope the till is okay. It got confusing with that big note at the end.” Benali argued that the message concerned possible till confusion rather than an admission, and that the count had not been checked in her presence.

The dispute arose from a claimed €180 shortage discovered at the end of a closing shift at Marchal’s shop. Marchal alleged that Benali, who had been handling the counter, should repay the amount as money unlawfully taken from the till.

The record included the closing cash-count note and the timestamped message from Benali. It did not include a signed joint count, a denomination-by-denomination breakdown, direct evidence of cash being taken, or evidence establishing who caused the discrepancy.

The outcome is limited to the evidence placed before the court. It determines that the recorded shortage was not proven to have been caused by Benali and therefore does not support repayment on the present record.