© Getty images
Robert Hargreaves explores what the Supreme Court’s ruling on part-time status means for employers
- Covers Augustine v Data Cars, relating to part-time status and less favourable treatment, as well as relevant caselaw.
- Explores the practical implications for employers and what employment lawyers need to consider.
- In Augustine, the Supreme Court held part-time status need not be the sole cause of less favourable treatment. It rejected McMenemy v Capita Business Services.
On 12 August 2026 the Supreme Court gave judgment in Augustine v Data Cars Ltd [2026] UKSC 30, resolving a question about the protection of part-time workers left unsettled for almost two decades.
The £148 circuit fee
Warren Augustine was employed as a private hire driver by Data Cars Ltd, a small business, during 2016. Every driver paid a fixed weekly fee of £148, described as a circuit fee, for access to the company’s booking and dispatch system, irrespective of hours worked. His complaint was not that he was charged it, but that the fixed rate meant he paid more for each hour he drove than
