OPERATORS BE WARNED IS A FIXED CIRCUIT FEE A THING OF THE PAST?
Article by Conor Nolan Boira Consulting
https://boira-consulting.co.uk
A landmark Supreme Court ruling in Augustine v Data Cars Limited [2026] UKSC 30 may have just upended the private hire industry once again (Uber BV and Ors v Aslam and Ors UKSC/2019/0029 also springs to mind).
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court permitted Mr Augustine’s appeal to pursue detriment he alleges to have suffered as a part-time worker whereby he had to pay a fixed fee for £148 per week to access Data Car’s dispatch system.
Facts you need to know
Prior to the Supreme Court’s judgment, Mr Augustine was found to be a worker and an employee of Data Cars by the Employment Tribunal.
During the relevant period, Data Cars charged a “circuit fee” of £148 per week to drivers to access its dispatch system regardless of whether a driver worked full- or part-time.
During his engagement with Data Cars, Mr Augustine worked on average 43 hours per week.
The average driver worked 60 hours per week for Data Cars during the relevant period.
Mr Augustine argued that the “circuit fee” contravened Regulation 5 of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000.
Mr Augustine’s chosen comparator (used by the tribunal to assess whether there was a difference in treatment) worked over 90 hours per week for the purposes of assessing detriment under the Part- Time Workers (Prevention of Less favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000.
22
The Court (and indeed the initial employment tribunal) was satisfied that Mr Augustine was a “part-time worker”.
What the Supreme Court found
The Supreme Court found by having to pay £148 per week to access Data Car’s dispatch system, Mr Augustine was, paying more per hour he worked to access the dispatch system than a full-time driver would. The Supreme Court stated that Mr Augustine took home a lower proportion of his earnings compared to a full-time worker due to the fixed fee.
Paragraph 1 of the judgment highlights the crux of the matter:
“The question raised by the appeal is whether the right only applies where the part-time worker establishes that part-time status was the sole ground or reason for the less favourable treatment in question, rather than simply an effective cause of it”
The importance of this question could not be overstated as the Supreme Court’s judgment could open the floodgates for protection from detriment of part-time workers around the country (and not just in the private hire sector).
The Supreme Court established that the test for assessing whether a part-time worker has suffered detriment under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 now boils down to whether part-time status is the effective and predominant cause of the less favourable or adverse treatment, not the sole cause.
This bar is much lower than it being the “sole cause” for the detrimental treatment.
What does this mean for operators?
This judgment highlights yet another risk private hire operators face in 2026. Should an operator be
SEPTEMBER 2026 PHTM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78
