Court says there was no discrimination against part-time worker

The Court of Appeal (CA) has upheld the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), which found no discrimination against a part-time taxi driver charged the same “flat rate” circuit fee as full-time drivers. The CA reached this conclusion in the case of Augustine v Data Cars Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 658 (first reported in Labour Research, September 2024, page 19).

Augustine was a part-time driver and had to pay the same £148 weekly fee as other drivers, irrespective of hours worked. He claimed in the Employment Tribunal (ET) that this was a breach of Reg 5 of the Part-Time Workers Regulations, which prevent less favourable treatment than comparable full-time workers. The ET dismissed his claim.

Augustine appealed to the EAT and again failed, on the grounds that, although the treatment was discriminatory, it wasn’t on the sole ground that he was part time. He appealed to the CA, which reached the same conclusion.

The CA felt bound to follow this test, set out in the Scottish Court of Session case of McMenemy v Capita Business Services Ltd. The CA was divided, with the majority concluding that McMenemy had been wrongly decided but reluctantly agreeing that it couldn’t diverge from a Scottish authority on this point. There needed to be consistency in application of the law throughout Great Britain.

The Claimant would be granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court if he wished.