Claimant v 4V Holdings Limited

Outcome

Facts

Three claimants (A, B, and C) worked as dancers/performers at Sophisticats clubs operated through a complex corporate structure involving multiple companies over time. The claimants alleged that John McKeown (second respondent) and John McKeown Clubs Limited (third respondent) were at all times in operational control, despite various companies ostensibly operating the clubs. At a case management hearing in January 2024, nine originally-named respondents were removed leaving only 4V Holdings Limited (first respondent), which subsequently became insolvent. The claimants applied to add back the second and third respondents, arguing they had been misled about the correct contracting party. The tribunal heard extensive evidence about corporate structures, SEVL licensing, payment records, and operational control spanning 2016-2025.

Decision

The tribunal granted the claimants' application to add John McKeown and John McKeown Clubs Limited as second and third respondents, finding that their earlier removal was based on inaccurate representations and that there are genuine issues to be determined about employment status and operational control. The tribunal declined to add a fourth prospective respondent (JW Clubs Limited) finding it was merely a 'sleeping partner' with no operational control. The tribunal also declined to strike out the first respondent's defence despite non-participation, as it was now actively engaging, but refused permission to amend its defence.

Practical note

Legal authorities cited