The Supreme Court has considered in Augustine v Data Cars whether a part-time worker must show that part-time status was the sole reason for less favourable treatment, a point affecting part-time workers and their employers.
Key facts
- Who: Part-time workers who believe they are treated less favourably than comparable full-time colleagues, and the employers who engage them.
- From: 12 August 2026 (date of judgment)
- Source: Augustine v Data Cars Limited [2026] UKSC 30
Background
The Supreme Court gave judgment on 12 August 2026 in Augustine v Data Cars Limited [2026] UKSC 30, on appeal from the Court of Appeal ([2025] EWCA Civ 658). Lady Simler gave the judgment, with which Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt and Lord Richards agreed. The case was heard on 7 May 2026.
Warren Augustine was a private hire driver and an employee of Data Cars Ltd, a small business, in 2016. He worked fewer hours than typical full-time drivers, averaging 34.8 hours a week according to the employment tribunal. Every driver, full or part-time, paid the same weekly "circuit fee" for access to the company's booking system. Mr Augustine argued that, because the fee was fixed regardless of hours, he paid more per hour than a comparable full-time driver, and that this was less favourable treatment of a part-time worker.
The question
Regulation 5 of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 gives a part-time worker the right not to be treated less favourably than a comparable full-time worker. Under regulation 5(2), the right applies only if the treatment is "on the ground that the worker is a part-time worker" and is not justified on objective grounds.
The regulations do not use the word "sole". The question was whether the right applies only where part-time status was the sole reason for the treatment, or whether it is enough that it was an effective cause.
How the case reached the Supreme Court
The employment tribunal dismissed the claim. It found the fee was charged so that the business could earn revenue, not because Mr Augustine worked fewer hours, and that part-time status was not the "sole ground".
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and the majority in the Court of Appeal agreed with Mr Augustine's reading of the law. Both nonetheless held that they were bound by an earlier Scottish decision, McMenemy v Capita Business Services Ltd [2007] CSIH 25, which required the sole-ground test. Elisabeth Laing LJ held in the Court of Appeal that McMenemy was correct. Permission to appeal was granted so the issue could be resolved across the United Kingdom.
The argument for a "sole ground" test rests on the EU framework agreement on part-time work, which the 2000 Regulations were made to implement. Clause 4.1 of that agreement refers to less favourable treatment "solely because" a worker works part time.
What this means for part-time workers and employers
The regulations set out how a claim works. A claimant must identify a comparable full-time worker, show less favourable treatment and show that it was on the ground of part-time status. The employer must then show objective justification. If a complaint is brought, it is for the employer to identify the ground for the treatment.
The regulations also apply the "pro rata principle", under which a part-time worker is generally to receive not less than the proportion of pay or benefit that their weekly hours bear to those of a comparable full-time worker, unless that is inappropriate.
Sources
- Augustine v Data Cars Limited [2026] UKSC 30, Supreme Court, 12 August 2026