Case 2413949/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr G Hadfield v Falconex Ltd — 2021

Case reference: 2413949/2020
Decision date: 30 December 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ainscough Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr G Hadfield

Respondent

Falconex Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge Ainscough refused Falconex Ltd's application to strike out the claims. The judgment is interlocutory only and does not decide the substantive merits of the case.

The tribunal directed that the disputed issue of whether Mr Hadfield was furloughed for 2 or 3 weeks in May 2020 should be determined at the final hearing. The judge stated that this issue was relevant to whether the claimant had a reasonable belief in any protected disclosure, so evidence from both parties would be needed on that point.

The judgment also records that the furlough issue would have no bearing on the claim brought under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	Respondent's strike-out application was refused. The tribunal said the issue of whether the claimant was furloughed for 2 or 3 weeks in May 2020 would be determined at the final hearing because it was relevant to whether he had a reasonable belief in any protected disclosure.	Other	—	—
Trade union	Respondent's strike-out application was refused. The tribunal recorded that the furlough issue would have no bearing on the claim brought under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.	Other	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.