A, B, & C v 4V Holdings Limited and 3 others — 2025

At the preliminary hearing on 11 and 12 September 2025, the tribunal considered joinder, strike out, and amendment issues, while the separate question of whether the claimants were employees or workers, or self-employed, was adjourned to 11 and 12 December 2025. The tribunal found that the January 2025 case management position had not accurately reflected the dispute over the identity of the contracting party and that the issue remained open at the time the prospective respondents were removed.

The tribunal rejoined the second and third respondents because it was in the interests of justice to have the status and identity of the correct respondent determined in the proceedings. In reaching that view, it found that the second respondent had remained in overall control of the Clubs' operations despite delegating day-to-day management at times, relying on the pay messages, disciplinary and conduct issues, and the licensing committee evidence. It did not accept that the operating-company payroll records were definitive proof that control had passed away from the second and third respondents.

The tribunal refused to add the prospective fourth respondent, JW Clubs Limited, finding that Mr Wythe and that company did not run or materially involve themselves in the Club's operations. It described the prospective fourth respondent as a sleeping partner and concluded that there was no legal issue between it and the claimants that needed to be determined in these proceedings. On the first respondent's conduct, the tribunal held that there had been deliberate non-participation and disruption, but it declined to strike out the response under Rule 38(1)(d) because the first respondent was then actively participating again. It rejected the first respondent's application to amend its defence because the application had not been actively pursued and there was a significant risk that the amendment would address issues that had already been determined or heard.