© 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
