Lap-dancing mogul Peter Stringfellow is preparing to pay out over €1.5m, having been advised by his solicitors to set the money aside in anticipation of a successful claim, to the family of George MacDonald, a man killed at one of his clubs by bouncer Marcus Marriott who was convicted of manslaughter for the killing.

The deceased, 34-year-old George MacDonald, died after he was punched by Marcus Marriott, a former amateur boxer and a member of the door security team, at Stringfellow's club in the West End of London. Marriott was subsequently convicted of manslaughter for the killing.

Stuart Dench of Stewarts Solicitors, who are representing the family, said “Mr MacDonald’s young family were financially dependent upon him and it is financial dependency that has formed the basis of the claim.”

At the time of the incident Marcus Marriott was performing his duties as a doorman at Peter Stringfellow’s club. Although Marriott was engaged on a self-employed or agency basis, in other words not directly employed by the Stringfellow’s club, Stringfellow’s has become vicariously liable for the negligence.

This case reflects the findings of the Luminar Leisure case where Last year the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court ruling that Luminar Leisure was vicariously liable for the actions of a bouncer working at their Chicago Rock Café in Southend, even though he wasn’t directly employed by them.

In short this case, and the Luminar Leisure case, have now set case law precedents which highlight the fact that liability cannot be passed on merely by means of a contract.

What this means is that if people are working under an agency or sub-contractual basis for tax and national insurance reasons the commissioning agency, or main employer, may still be liable for the actions of sub-contracted staff in certain circumstances as even sub-contracted staff may be viewed as ‘directly employed’ for health and safety purposes.

In other words, parent companies cannot pass on liability by means of simply engaging agency or self-employed staff, but have to ensure that when undertaking in any sub-contractual arrangement that the commissioning agency undertake due diligence in ensuring that the staff operating on their premises, or on their behalf, are competent to do the job, which means that they possess the appropriate skills and have had the appropriate training.

Let us reduce your liability by going that extra mile

We have been helping protect our clients for many years now by always keeping abreast of the law and any potential legal developments. To this extent we were working with the potential implications of the Human Rights Act years before it became part of UK statute and we have been doing the same since the Law Commission published its report on the proposed Corporate Manslaughter Bill in 1996.

In addition our training has also been subject to legal audits and health and safety risk assessments and reviews ensuring that we work within the requirements of the appropriate legislation.

To date we have successfully supported our clients in court and in industrial tribunals by being able to demonstrate due diligence and competence in our approach to our training delivery.

For information on our range of courses that will help your organisation reduce their liability click on the links below:

§       5 Days - NFPS Physical Restraint Instructors Qualifying Course -including the BTEC Level 3 Advanced Award in Physical Restraint Practice - more info

§       3 Days - BTEC Level 2 Intermediate Award in Physical Restraint Practice - more info

§      5 Days - BTEC Level 3 Award in the Delivery of Conflict Management Training - more info