A £1,000-a-night lapdancer has been cleared to take legal action against Stringfellows for unfair dismissal after a judge reversed a ruling preventing her from doing so.
Nadine Quashie, who worked as a topless dancer in a G-string at the gentleman's club for 18 months, is free to take the action after an employment appeal tribunal ruled that she had been directly employed by the Covent Garden nightspot, where she earned the equivalent of £200,000 a year before she was sacked in 2008.
Judge Jeremy McMullen QC overturned a previous employment ruling in November 2010 that Ms Quashie, a former university women's officer, had been self-employed when she worked at the club and could not therefore bring the action.
Mr McMullen said that despite the fact that the mother from west London has not been paid directly by the club - earning her money from punters in the form of pre-paid vouchers stuffed into a garter belt - the terms of her employment meant she was legally one of its employees.
Stringfellows said it would fight the ruling and take the case to the High Court.
A club spokesman said: "We're very disappointed by the decision of this judge. And we are obviously appealing immediately to the High Court, where our case will be heard in front of three judges.
"And we fully expect to have this judge's decision overturned."
Launching the appeal against the November 2010 ruling, Ms Quashie's lawyer argued she had been an employee, as illustrated by the fact the club subjected her to numerous contractual obligations.
Ms Quashie worked topless wearing a G-string at the club over an 18-month period, taking home more than £1,000 a night when it was busy.
Her garter would be stuffed with pre-paid vouchers from clients, called "heavenly vouchers", the central London hearing was told.
She has said she did not realise she was deemed to be self-employed until another dancer told her, five to six months after she started working at the club.
Ms Quashie, who is in her late 20s, held a student union sabbatical position at Thames Valley University less than two years before joining Stringfellows in June 2007.
She went on to earn an estimated £200,000 a year at the venue before she was sacked for gross misconduct over alleged drug-dealing, she says.
But she maintains she was not guilty of the charge and claims she was wrongfully dismissed.
In his ruling, Mr McMullan said: "The employment judge erred in her conclusion that the claimant was not an employee on each night she performed work and in the intervening stages when she was on the rota to perform work, on holiday, and at all stages in between."
He added: "On each night she attended the claimant was obliged to work as directed by the management.
"If she did not provide the free dances or other duties, she could be fined. I infer from the findings that if the claimant were directed to a customer, she could not refuse.
"It seems to me that mere attendance on the night is pursuant to a requirement that she work; that is, that she turn up and stay throughout the night shift on pain of fine or deduction.
"She takes the risk that there will be no remunerative work, but she is willing to accept that on the basis that she is available for it, and indeed she accepts the obligation to do free dances.
"All of those conclusions point ineluctably towards a finding that on the night the claimant was an employee."
Ms Quashie and her legal team were unavailable for comment today.