Case 2219331/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Jolita Valeikaite v Myles Bunyard — 2025
- Case reference
- 2219331/2024
- Decision date
- 21 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bunting Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jolita Valeikaite
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Bunting at London Central on 13 March 2025 heard the claim with the claimant Jolita Valeikaite in person and the respondent Myles Bunyard not attending.
The Tribunal found the claimant was employed by company number 10701411, originally named French Sole Ltd and renamed FS (Maddox) Ltd on 10 January 2024. She continued to receive payslips in the name of French Sole Ltd but the legal entity was the same. A separate later-created company called French Sole Limited was a different legal entity and was not her employer.
The claimant was underpaid in February, March and April 2024 by a total of £4,816 by FS (Maddox) Ltd, but that company was the subject of a compulsory winding up order under section 130 Insolvency Act 1986 and the claim could not proceed against it. Mr Bunyard was the claimant's boss but not her employer. The claim against him for unpaid wages therefore failed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim against Mr Myles Bunyard fails because he was not the claimant's employer; the employer was FS (Maddox) Ltd (formerly French Sole Ltd, company number 10701411), which was the subject of a compulsory winding up order under section 130 Insolvency Act 1986. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 130 Insolvency Act 1986
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.