Hammered Home – Employee wins unfair dismissal claim triggered by wife’s hammer attack on her manager

January 20, 2026

When personal relationships are met with workplace conflict, employers can find themselves navigating highly sensitive and emotionally charged situations. But even the most extraordinary facts do not dilute the need for fair and evidence-based decision making.

In Smith v North West Ambulance Service Trust, an NHS ambulance worker with 26 years’ service was found to have been unfairly dismissed after her wife carried out a criminal attack on their manager.

Background

The Claimant, Paula Smith, had worked for North West Ambulance Service Trust (NWAS) for over two decades as a Patient Transport Worker. Her wife, Stacey Smith, was also employed by NWAS in the same service. The couple sought to align their shifts so that they could spend more time together, but believed that their manager, Michala Morton, was obstructing this request. A joint grievance was raised in December 2021.

Relations deteriorated further following the death of a patient known well to both the Claimant and Stacey in July 2022. Due to their shift patterns, nether was able to attend the funeral, which they said caused significant distress. Around this time, the Claimant made critical comments on social media about her manager, though Morton was not named.

NWAS investigated the posts, and in January 2023, the Claimant attended a disciplinary hearing for breaching the Trust’s social media policy. The Claimant received her first written warning in August 2023. Separately, the couple had raised another grievance in September 2022, alleging unfair treatment in rota allocation.

The situation escalated dramatically in November 2023 when the Claimant’s wife attacked Morton with a hammer outside Morton’s home. The Claimant’s wife was later convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment.

The Claimant maintained that she had no prior knowledge of the attack and only learned of it after her wife’s arrest. The Claimant was subsequently arrested following allegations made by Morton of harassment and threats to kill. Those allegations were investigated and dismissed by the police, although the Claimant was initially released on bail with conditions preventing contact with Morton. She was suspended from work on full pay the day after the arrest.

In March 2024, the Claimant’s bail conditions were lifted entirely. Despite being cleared and no longer subject to any restrictions, she remained suspended. In April 2024, NWAS dismissed the Claimant, citing reputational risk and an alleged inability to avoid contact with Morton. The Claimant learned of her dismissal while attending her wife’s criminal trial, when Morton referred to her in evidence as an “ex-employee”.

The Claimant appealed her dismissal, arguing that she had publicly condemned her wife’s actions and was being unfairly associated with a crime she did not commit. The appeal was rejected, with NWAS relying in part on a Facebook post made during the appeal process and pointing to an alleged breakdown in trust.

Tribunal decision

The Tribunal found that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed.

The Tribunal was clear that the Claimant played no part in the attack and was in no way responsible for her arrest, which stemmed from allegations that were later dismissed by the police. NWAS’s suspicion that the Claimant must have known about her wife’s plans was found to be unsupported by any evidence.

Importantly, the Tribunal rejected NWAS’s argument that the Claimant’s continued employment posed a reputational risk. Media coverage of the Claimant’s wife’s conviction did not name the Claimant or include her photograph, and there was no evidence that NWAS’s reputation would have been damaged had the Claimant remained employed.

The Tribunal was also critical of NWAS’s refusal to consider redeployment. Given the size and geographical spread of the organisation, the judge found that suitable alternative roles could have been explored to avoid any contact with Morton.

A remedy hearing will take place at a later date.

Lessons for employers

This case serves several important lessons for employers:

  1. Guilt by association is not a fair reason for dismissal – an employee should not be dismissed for the actions of a partner. Decisions must be based on the employee’s own conduct, not assumptions arising from personal relationships.  
  2. Redeployment should genuinely be considered – where workplace relationships have broken down, employers should actively explore alternatives to dismissal, particularly in large organisations where redeployment may be feasible.
  3. Reputational risk must be real, not speculative – assumptions that the public will associate an employee with another person’s wrongdoing are unlikely to be sufficient in justifying dismissal.
How we can help

For further information, or to discuss the issues raised within this case, please contact us to speak to a member of our Employment Team.

Darren Smith
Partner, Employment
<script>
document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function () {
  const deptEl = document.getElementById('acf-author-department');
  const department = deptEl?.dataset?.department;

  if (typeof gtag === 'function' && department) {
    gtag('set', { author_department: department });
  }
});


  window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
  const dept = document.getElementById("author-department")?.textContent?.trim();
  if (dept) {
    window.dataLayer.push({
      event: "authorDataReady",
      author_department: dept
    });
  }

</script>
View profileContact Us

This reflects the law and market position at the date of publication and is written as a general guide. It does not contain definitive legal advice, which should be sought in relation to a specific matter.

Latest Legal Insights