Claimant v Myles Bunyard
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that while the claimant was owed £4,816 in unpaid wages by her actual employer FS (Maddox) Ltd (formerly French Sole Ltd, company number 10701411), she could not succeed against the named respondent Myles Bunyard. The tribunal concluded that Bunyard, whilst being the claimant's boss, was not her employer - she was employed by the corporate entity throughout. Additionally, the actual employer FS (Maddox) Ltd had been subject to a compulsory winding up order under s130 Insolvency Act 1986, meaning the claim could not proceed.
Facts
The claimant was employed by French Sole Ltd (company number 10701411) from 20 September 2022. That company changed its name to FS (Maddox) Ltd on 10 January 2024, though the claimant continued to receive payslips in the old name. The claimant was underpaid wages totaling £4,816 between February and April 2024. FS (Maddox) Ltd was subsequently made subject to a compulsory winding up order. The claimant brought her claim naming Myles Bunyard, her boss, as the respondent rather than the corporate employer.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that while the claimant was owed £4,816 in unpaid wages, Myles Bunyard was not her employer - the corporate entity FS (Maddox) Ltd was her employer throughout. Since the actual employer was subject to insolvency proceedings under s130 Insolvency Act 1986, the claim could not proceed and the wrong party had been named as respondent.
Practical note
Claimants must correctly identify their employer as the corporate entity, not individual directors or managers, and claims against insolvent companies cannot proceed in the employment tribunal.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2219331/2024
- Decision date
- 13 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Myles Bunyard
- Sector
- —
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No