North West Ambulance Service Worker Unfairly Dismissed After Ex-Wife Attempted to Kill Boss in Hammer Attack

Published : January 28, 2026

In Mrs Paula Smith v North West Ambulance Service Trust, a former ambulance trust worker succeeded in her unfair dismissal tribunal claim after she was sacked due to her association with her then-wife, who tried to kill their boss in a hammer attack.

Read on as we establish what happened and discuss the reasoning behind the tribunal’s decision. We explore both Mrs Paula Smith’s and her employer’s position on the case, before providing our take on the matter.

If you believe you’ve been dismissed unfairly, contact Redmans Solicitors. As experts in the employment sector, we can answer your questions and assess your eligibility to make a claim.

Learn more about how we can help by:

The Facts in Mrs Paula Smith v North West Ambulance Service Trust

Background to the Hammer Attack Case

Mrs Paula Smith (“the Claimant”) worked as a care assistant for North West Ambulance Service Trust (“the Respondent”) from 1998. She continued her employment there until her dismissal on 25 April 2024. She was married to Mrs Stacey Smith at the time of her dismissal, who also worked for the Respondent.

The pair were supervised by Ms Michala Morton, whom they’d raised a grievance against for obstructing their shared time-off requests. These issues continued into 2023.

Hammer Attack Leads to Claimant’s Suspension

On 11 November 2023, Mrs S Smith attacked Ms Morton with a hammer outside her home. The Claimant wasn’t involved in the attack and had no knowledge of it. She only found out about what had happened after her then-wife’s arrest.

Read More: No Win No Fee Solicitors London: How No Win No Fee Employment Claims Work

Despite this, the Claimant was arrested the next day on allegations of harassment and threats to kill Ms Morton. She was subsequently released on bail, subject to conditions including not:

  • Contacting Ms Morton,
  • Attending any premises where Ms Morton would likely be, and
  • Contacting any employee of the Respondent.

On 13 November, she was also suspended from work.

Unfair Dismissal Tribunal Claim Brought

By 12 March 2024, Greater Manchester Police informed the Respondent that the criminal case against the Claimant was no longer being pursued and that her bail conditions had been lifted. She learned of this decision herself on 3 April.

Following the initial incident, the Claimant went through the Respondent’s formal disciplinary proceedings, attending the final meeting on 19 April. An outcome letter dated 25 April, which had been prepared by the Respondent’s disciplinary officer, Mr Ian Stringer, was then sent to the Claimant, dismissing her with notice for “some other substantial reason” (SOSR). Notably, her then-wife’s trial for attempted murder had begun three days earlier, and during the hearing, Ms Morton had referred to the Claimant as an “ex-employee.”

The Claimant unsuccessfully appealed her dismissal, causing her to pursue an employment tribunal claim. She brought this on the same day she was dismissed, alleging unfair dismissal.

The Parties’ Positions: Arguments of the Claimant and Respondent

The Respondent’s Position

During the employment tribunal proceedings, the Respondent contended that all evidence demonstrated the Claimant was dismissed under SOSR. This primarily concerned a breakdown of trust and confidence. Among other things, the reasons for dismissing the Claimant were:

  • Her relationship with her wife,
  • The unlikely reconciliation with Ms Morton, and
  • Potential reputational damage to the Respondent if it were to continue with the Claimant’s employment.

The Respondent further argued that it had no confidence that the Claimant could return to work without further incident. It cited a pre-appeal Facebook post in which she expressed frustration about losing her job and its impact on her personal life. She stated, “Well that’s the icing on the cake all it needs is the f*cking cherry…26 years’ service down the drain and now 9 years of my life wasted.”

The Respondent claimed to have considered whether redeployment would be reasonable. However, given the above, it concluded that even if a suitable role was identified, it wouldn’t have offered the position.

The Claimant’s Position

Among other things, the Claimant contended that the dismissal decision was pre-determined. She cited Ms Morton’s comments during her ex-wife’s trial, which were said before the outcome letter had been sent. She also argued that no reasonable efforts were made to consider redeployment, and that, by the time of the final merits hearing, no reputational damage had occurred despite the conclusion of Mrs S Smith’s trial.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following the proceedings, employment tribunal Judge Holmes provided a reserved judgment to the parties on 28 November 2025. The tribunal ultimately ruled in the Claimant’s favour, stating that she’d been unfairly dismissed.

In coming to the above conclusion, the tribunal identified that, based on the evidence available, the reasons for dismissal were that the Claimant was:

  1. Married to Mrs S Smith, who was employed by the Respondent, and had attempted to murder Ms Morton in a hammer attack, and
  2. Arrested and on bail with conditions preventing her from working for four months before the claim was dropped against her.

The Claimant’s Arrest

The tribunal found that the first reason the Respondent used for dismissal was outside of the Claimant’s control. Her arrest came as a result of allegations made by Ms Morton, which, given that the police didn’t find any case to answer, weren’t substantiated.

The Claimant’s Relationship with Mrs S Smith: The Hammer Attack Perpetrator

The second reason relied upon by the Respondent for the Claimant’s dismissal concerned her relationship with Mrs S Smith. The tribunal cited wording from the Respondent’s first signed dismissal letter, which was later amended, stating: “The closeness of your relationship with your wife, who stands trial for the serious and violent assault on an NWAS manager, cannot be ignored and it is difficult to assure ourselves that you had no notion of your wife’s intentions.”

Read More: NHS Doctor Awarded £85k After Unfair Dismissal Claim

These words reflected Mr Stringer’s thought process when considering the Claimant’s dismissal. However, their subsequent removal from the final letter sent to the Claimant arguably highlights the problematic and potentially prejudicial nature of the conclusions being drawn.

Reputational Damage

The employment tribunal finally considered the argument of reputational damage. It stated that, if anything, reputational damage would only have arisen from the public knowing that an employee had tried to murder another employee in a hammer attack.

Even still, the tribunal contended that whilst the attack arose from a workplace dispute, a “right thinking person” would unlikely think less of the Respondent or its services because one of its employees attacked another outside working hours.

Notwithstanding the above, even if reputational damage did arise, the matter concerned Mrs S Smith, not the Claimant. The Claimant’s only connection was that she was married to the perpetrator and employed by the Respondent. The tribunal therefore questioned how the Claimant’s dismissal would reduce any possible reputational damage, concluding that “the Respondent did not give the risk [to reputation] due consideration…it acted on assumption, or, more accurately, speculation.”

The tribunal didn’t forget to consider the social media post made after termination, which the Respondent relied upon to support its argument of a breakdown in trust and confidence. However, Judge Holmes confirmed that this occurred after the dismissal and was a reaction to it, which the Claimant rightfully felt was unfair.

What About Redeployment?

Judge Holmes did accept that the Claimant’s returning to her original position with Ms Morton was unlikely to be reasonable in the circumstances. Thus, consideration for redeployment would have been justified. However, as outlined above, the Respondent didn’t seem to have meaningfully considered this.

The tribunal stated that the Respondent is a large employer covering a significant area of the North West of England, and the Claimant was willing to relocate in the circumstances. Again, though, this wasn’t investigated, despite this being a reasonable course of action in the circumstances.

Following the Claimant’s successful ruling, a remedy hearing will now proceed on 30 January 2026.

Conclusion

Overall, the tribunal found in favour of the Claimant and held that she had been substantively unfairly dismissed.

The Respondent wrongly placed emphasis on alleged conduct which undermined any claim of SOSR; conduct that wasn’t in fact of the Claimant’s making. The Respondent then didn’t reasonably apply its mind to the actual risk of reputational damage (which, incidentally, nothing to date has arisen about the Claimant’s connection with either party of the criminal trial or the Respondent). Furthermore, the Respondent had failed to reasonably apply its mind to alternatives to dismissal, of which there were clearly options.

The Hammer Attack Case: Our Final Thoughts

There was a lot to take away from the judgment provided by Judge Holmes. However, it seems quite clear that should an employer rely upon SOSR for dismissal, a claim for unfair dismissal could be successful if it failed to:

  • Firstly, consider what the actual reasons for the dismissal were, and
  • Secondly, whether those factual reasons were actually capable of justifying dismissal under SOSR.
Read More: Sacked BBC Radio Cornwall Presenter Receives Apology Following Homophobic Abuse

Equally, if an employer is relying upon reputational damage, an employee should be questioning their employer about the individual groups that could be affected and what the actual risk of reputational damage could be from those groups.

Finally, if considering dismissal under SOSR, alternatives to dismissal should equally be considered, and an employer should reasonably apply its mind to it. Employees, when facing such allegations, should consider the above points and be ready with their defences, or question the employer if it hasn’t been clear that the employer has considered them.

Get Help with Redmans

If you believe you’ve been unfairly dismissed and want legal help, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As employment specialists, we can assess your case and provide expert advice.

To begin, please:

The information on this page is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.