Augustine v Data Cars [2025] EWCA Civ 658: Court of Appeal judgment

Background

Mr Augustine worked as a part-time private hire driver for Data Cars Ltd. All employees, irrespective of if they were full-time or part-time, had to pay a flat weekly circuit fee of £148.00 to Data Cars  for access to the booking platform. Mr Augustine argued that this fee structure was inherently unfair to part-time drivers, as it represented a much larger proportion of their earnings compared to the full time drivers. He claimed this amounted to less favourable treatment on the basis of his part-time status, in breach of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000.

The Initial ET Decision

The Employment Tribunal dismissed Mr Augustine’s claim. It found that although the flat fee may have had a disproportionate effect on part-time drivers, the treatment was not because of his part-time status. Instead the Tribunal held that 'the reason why' Mr Augustine was charged a circuit fee was because that was what other comparable companies did. He was not charged a circuit fee for  the “sole reason” that he was  a part-time worker.

Employment Appeal Tribunal

Mr Augustine appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, who agreed with Mr Augustine and overturned the first of the employment tribunal’s findings. They found that under the pro-rata principle, Mr Augustine was treated less favourably because the circuit fee represented a greater proportion of his earnings than those of his comparator. The EAT did not necessarily agree with the “sole reason” principle the employment tribunal had determined, but felt bound to follow this due to an earlier Scottish case on this point.

Mr Augustine appealed to the Court of Appeal asking them to determine if the Regulations require the part-time status to be the sole ground for the less favourable treatment.

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It was determined by the majority of judges that whilst the earlier Scottish case which the EAT followed may have been wrongly decided, it was important to ensure consistency in the application of employment law across Great Britain. Therefore, the imposition of a flat-rate fee did not breach the PTWR as Mr Austine’s part-time status was not the sole reason for the treatment. However, they granted Mr Augustine  leave to appeal to the Supreme Court as the result in this case has left the law relating to part-time workers in an unsatisfactory state.

Conclusion

This case highlights the ongoing complexities in protecting part-time workers from less favourable treatment in the workplace. While current law requires that part-time status be the sole cause of the less favourable treatment of the Claimant for a claim to succeed, this interpretation is under review and may be clarified by the Supreme Court in the near future. As the law stands currently, if an employer could show that there were other factors, together with part-time status that led to it’s less favourable treatment of the person bringing a claim, then no claim could be brought under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. However, this narrow test will inevitably be challenged and employers should remain attentive to these developments and proactively ensure fair treatment of part-time employees to avoid potential tribunal claims.

By adopting clear, consistent policies and maintaining transparency in decision-making, employers can not only comply with the law but also foster a more inclusive and equitable work environment. Staying informed and prepared will be key as the legal landscape around part-time worker protections continues to evolve.