Employment Edit: 20 August 2026

Legal updates

Right to work check expansion

Important changes to the UK’s regime to prevent illegal working are on the way this autumn. From 1 October 2026, organisations’ obligations to carry out right to work checks will be expanded – in addition to checking that directly employed employees have the right to work, organisations will also need to carry out right to work checks on a broader group of individuals, including casual and zero hours workers and gig economy workers.

A new concept of “extended liability” will also be introduced, which will push liability for right to work checks up the supply chain in certain sub-contracting and labour supply situations. Where extended liability applies, the relevant organisation can establish a statutory excuse through meeting various “prescribed requirements”, including specific contractual provisions and onboarding arrangements.

The penalties for non-compliance can be very high so it’s important to review your workforce arrangements, onboarding processes, and contracts with labour providers now to identify what changes you need to make before October. Our business immigration team has written more about these changes and how you can prepare in the article below.

Part-time worker discrimination

The Supreme Court has confirmed that a part-time worker does not have to show that their part-time status was the only reason for less favourable treatment – it is enough that it was an effective cause of the treatment.

The claimant was a private hire driver who worked fewer hours than typical full-time drivers. All drivers were charged the same fixed weekly “circuit fee” to use the respondent’s booking system, regardless of the number of hours they worked. The claimant argued that this was less favourable treatment of him as a part-time worker as it meant he paid a higher fee per hour than a full-time driver. Initially, the employment tribunal dismissed his claim, finding that the fee was charged to enable the respondent to earn revenue under its business model and was not charged on the sole ground that the claimant worked part-time.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, noting that the relevant regulations use the words “on the ground that”, not “solely because” the worker is a part-time worker. For a claim to be successful, the worker therefore needs to show that their status as a part-time worker was an effective cause or reason for the less favourable treatment, even if it was not the only cause. This case provides important clarification of the scope of protection for part-time workers.

It is also worth noting that the same treatment may form the basis of a direct or indirect sex or disability discrimination claim – these claims carry more significant financial remedies than the remedies available under the part-time worker regulations, so are often the real driver (as well as wider diversity and inclusion objectives) behind employers carrying out compliance checks to ensure that policies and decisions are non-discriminatory or justifiable.

(Augustine v Data Cars Limited)