Cases2404385/2024

Claimant v North West Ambulance Service Trust

24 November 2025Before Employment Judge HolmesManchesterremote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant on grounds of some other substantial reason (SOSR), citing reputational damage and loss of trust and confidence arising from her arrest (later dropped) and her association with her wife who violently assaulted a manager. However, the tribunal found no reasonable employer would have dismissed in these circumstances: there was no real risk of reputational damage, the claimant had no involvement in the assault, the Police took no further action against her, and the respondent failed to properly explore redeployment. The dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses and the respondent acted on assumption and speculation rather than evidence. The decision to dismiss appeared rushed to coincide with the wife's criminal trial.

Facts

The claimant worked as an Ambulance Care Assistant for 26 years. In November 2023, her wife violently assaulted their mutual manager, Michala Morton, with a hammer. The claimant was arrested on suspicion of harassment and threats to kill Morton, and placed on bail conditions preventing her from working. In March 2024, the Police confirmed no further action would be taken against the claimant and her bail was lifted. Despite this, the respondent proceeded to dismiss her on 25 April 2024 for some other substantial reason (SOSR), citing loss of trust and confidence and potential reputational damage. The dismissal coincided with the start of the wife's criminal trial. The claimant's appeal was rejected.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair. No reasonable employer would have dismissed the claimant in these circumstances. The respondent acted on assumption and speculation rather than evidence: there was no real risk of reputational damage, the claimant had no involvement in the assault, the Police took no further action, and the respondent failed to properly explore redeployment options. The decision appeared rushed to ensure dismissal before the wife's trial commenced.

Practical note

An employer cannot fairly dismiss for reputational reasons based on an employee's familial association with someone who commits a serious criminal act, where the employee had no involvement, was not charged, and any reputational risk is speculative rather than evidenced, especially without properly exploring alternatives to dismissal.

Legal authorities cited

X v Y [2004] IRLR 625Pay v Lancashire Probation Service [2004] IRLR 129National Heart and Chest Hospitals Board of Governors v Nambiar [1981] IRLR 196

Statutes

Human Rights Act 1998 s.3ERA 1996 s.124ERA 1996 s.98

Case details

Case number
2404385/2024
Decision date
24 November 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
5
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
public sector
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Ambulance Care Assistant
Salary band
£25,000–£30,000
Service
26 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep