Case 2410170/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Stafford v North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2410170/2022
- Decision date
- 6 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Stafford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr G Stafford, an Emergency Medical Technician, was dismissed by North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust for gross misconduct on 7 September 2022. The tribunal recorded that the allegations arose from a complaint by his colleague, Simon Evens, about crude sexual remarks, a discussion about paedophilia, and the claimant showing photographs of children taken in his voluntary Scout work.
The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant for misconduct and that this was a potentially fair reason under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It held that the respondent’s belief that the misconduct had occurred was genuine, that there were reasonable grounds for that belief, and that the investigation was within the band of reasonable responses. The tribunal noted the claimant’s case that SE held a grudge from an earlier disagreement in December 2020, but rejected that contention on the evidence.
On sanction, the tribunal accepted that the employer was entitled to treat the conduct as gross misconduct and to conclude that summary dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. It also found that the appeal process was fair and reasonable, with an independent appeal panel considering the evidence and the claimant’s grounds of appeal. The claim of unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- Kent County Council v Gilham
- Burdett v Aviva Employment Services Ltd
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.