Augustine v Data Cars Limited [2026] UKSC 30
The UK Supreme Court has recently provided important clarification on the scope of protection afforded to part-time workers under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (“PTWR”) in the case of Augustine v Data Cars Limited [2026] UKSC 30. In a unanimous judgment, the Court confirmed that a worker’s part-time status need only be an effective cause, and not the sole cause, of less favourable treatment for a claim under Regulation 5 PTWR to arise.
The decision resolves a longstanding conflict in the authorities and aligns the causation test under the PTWR with the approach traditionally applied in discrimination law under the Equality Act 2010.
Facts
The Claimant, Mr Augustine, was employed by Data Cars Limited as a private hire driver. Mr Augustine worked fewer hours than typical full-time drivers and was therefore a part-time worker for the purposes of the PTWR. All drivers were required to pay a fixed weekly “circuit fee” to access Data Cars’ booking and dispatch system. The fee was charged at the same rate regardless of the number of hours worked, meaning Mr Augustine was paying the same fee as his full-time counterparts.
Mr Augustine brought a claim under Regulation 5 PTWR, arguing that the fixed fee amounted to less favourable treatment because part-time drivers effectively paid a higher fee per hour worked than comparable full-time drivers.
Regulation 5 relevantly provides:
5.—(1) A part-time worker has the right not to be treated by his employer less favourably than the employer treats a comparable full-time worker—
(a) as regards the terms of his contract; or
(b) by being subjected to any other detriment by any act, or deliberate failure to act, of his employer.
(2) The right conferred by paragraph (1) applies only if—
(a) the treatment is on the ground that the worker is a part-time worker, and
(b) the treatment is not justified on objective grounds.
Litigation history
The Employment Tribunal rejected the claim. It held that Mr Augustine was treated the same as the identified comparator and did not suffer less favourable treatment. Further, the circuit fee was imposed as part of the respondent’s business model, rather than because Mr Augustine worked part-time. The Tribunal further concluded that even if part-time status had played a role, the claim would fail because it was not the sole reason for the treatment.
Mr Augustine appealed to the EAT, which disagreed with the Employment Tribunal’s conclusion that part-time status was not a reason for the treatment. The EAT held that the fixed circuit fee was inherently linked to the fact that drivers worked differing hours and that part-time status was therefore at least a contributing factor to the alleged disadvantage.
However, the EAT considered itself bound by the Scottish Inner House decision in McMenemy v Capita Business Services Ltd, which has been widely understood as requiring part-time status to be the sole cause of the treatment. As a result, despite finding that part-time status had played a role, the EAT dismissed the appeal because it was not the only reason for the fee structure.
Mr Augustine appealed to the Court of Appeal (“EWCA”). By a majority, the EWCA agreed with the EAT that Mr Augustine’s part-time status was a cause of the treatment complained of. The majority accepted that the fixed fee adversely affected part-time workers because they worked fewer hours while paying the same charge as full-time drivers. Nevertheless, the EWCA held that it remained bound by McMenemy and concluded the claim could not succeed unless part-time status was established as the sole cause of the treatment.
Mr Augustine further appealed to the UK Supreme Court (“UKSC”), who granted permission to appeal. The UKSC found that uncertainty had been created by the conflicting authorities and noted the importance of establishing the correct causation test under Regulation 5 PTWR. The UKSC took the opportunity to do so in Mr Augustine’s case.
Decision
The UKSC unanimously allowed the appeal and held that Regulation 5 does not require a claimant to establish their part-time status was the sole reason for the treatment complained of.
The UKSC noted that the protection arises where the treatment is ‘on the ground that’ the worker is a part-time worker. By the time the PTWR were introduced, the phrase was well established in discrimination legislation, which consistently interpreted the wording as requiring the protected characteristic to be an effective cause of the treatment, rather than the only cause.
The UKSC further observed that Parliament had deliberately chosen not to adopt the wording of the Framework Agreement (being the agreement on part-time work adopted by the Council of the European Union), which refers to treatment occurring “solely because” a person works part-time.
Accordingly, the UKSC held that part-time workers are protected where their part-time status is an effective cause of the less favourable treatment, even if other factors also contributed to it. As the highest court in the land and whose decisions bind all lower courts this case represents the current legal position and the authority that all other courts must follow when determining Regulation 5 claims.
Key Takeaways for Schools and MATs
The judgment represents one of the most significant PTWR decisions in recent years, and is likely to make PTWR claims easier to pursue. The UKSC decision brings the PTWR in line with established discrimination law principles under the Equality Act 2010. The judgment does not create an automatic entitlement for part-time workers to challenge every workplace disadvantage, but significantly broadens the scope of protection available.
For Schools and Multi Academy Trusts (“MATs”), the decision highlights the importance of carefully reviewing employment practices that may disproportionately affect part-time workers, particularly in relation to:
- pay and remuneration structures;
- fixed charges, allowances or deductions;
- access to overtime opportunities;
- shift allocation and scheduling arrangements; and
- benefits linked to hours worked or availability.
Schools and MATs can no longer rely on the existence of additional business reasons to defeat a claim at the causation stage if part-time status remains an effective cause of the treatment. Instead, the focus is likely to shift towards whether any difference in treatment can be objectively justified. Schools and MATs should take the opportunity to review policies and practices affecting part-time workers to ensure they can justify any arrangements that may have a disproportionate impact on that group.
This briefing is not intended to be a definitive statement of the law and is correct at the time of publication. It should not be taken as a substitute for professional legal advice. It does not represent the views of Winckworth Sherwood or any of the authors.
If your school or MAT require advice and assistance in relation to part-time worker issues or any other school HR or employment law related matter, please contact Winckworth Sherwood’s dedicated Schools HR helpdesk on schoolshr@wslaw.co.uk or 0345 026 8690.