Clawback clauses are commonly used by employers to recover training costs when employees leave shortly after receiving development and support. A recent Court of Appeal decision provides important guidance on when a clawback clause may be enforceable and when it could amount to an unreasonable restraint of trade.
Many employers invest significant time and resources in training junior staff, particularly where new recruits need support, mentoring or technical development training agreements to include provisions requiring employees to repay some or all of those costs if they leave within a certain period.
However, the Court of Appeal’s decision in Geeks Ltd v Watts is an important reminder that training repayment clauses are not automatically enforceable simply because they are framed as a debt. If, in practice, a clause discourages an employee from leaving or taking up other work, it may amount to a restraint of trade. To be enforceable, it must go no further than reasonably necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interest in maintaining a stable, trained workforce.
What happened in the case?
Mr Watts joined Geeks Ltd as a trainee quality assurance engineer in March 2019. His employment contract provided for a starting salary of £18,000, increasing in later years. He also signed a separate training agreement under which he accepted responsibility for a “training cost debt” of £8,108. This was said to represent the estimated cost of supporting and mentoring him in the role.
The agreement provided that the debt would be written off gradually after the first 12 months of employment. If his employment ended before the debt had been fully written off, the outstanding balance would become repayable in monthly instalments. The agreement also stated that Mr Watts would not be in breach of contract if he chose not to remain employed and that nothing in the agreement was intended to prevent him from pursuing other employment.
Eight months later, Mr Watts resigned to take up a better-paid role elsewhere. Geeks Ltd then brought proceedings to recover the full £8,108. Mr Watts argued that the repayment provisions were an unlawful restraint of trade.
What did the Court of Appeal decide?
The Court of Appeal allowed Mr Watts’ appeal and held that the clawback provisions were unenforceable.
The Court rejected the employer’s argument that the provisions were simply a debt and therefore fell outside the restraint of trade doctrine. The key question was not the label attached to the clause, but its practical effect. A clause can still restrain trade even if it does not directly prohibit the employee from leaving or working elsewhere.
The Court emphasised that financial disincentives are not exempt from scrutiny. If a repayment obligation would, or might, hamper an employee’s ability to move jobs freely, the restraint of trade doctrine may be engaged.
Why was the clause unreasonable?
The Court proceeded on the basis that Geeks Ltd had a legitimate interest in maintaining a stable and trained workforce. However, the repayment provisions went further than reasonably necessary to protect that interest.
Two factors were particularly important. First, the clause applied in almost all circumstances, regardless of why Mr Watts’ employment ended. With the exception of redundancy, it applied whether he resigned, was dismissed, moved to another technology role, left the sector altogether or had no new job to go to.
Secondly, the Court looked at the broader effect of the scheme. Mr Watts was a low-paid trainee. In the early months of his employment, the repayment obligation effectively meant that, in retrospect, he was reduced to the equivalent of an unpaid intern, albeit with a loan repayable over time. The Court also noted that he had not received independent legal advice and that there was inequality of bargaining power.
What does this mean for employers using a clawback clause?
This decision does not mean that all training repayment clauses are unlawful. Employers can still protect genuine investment in training, but any clawback provision must be carefully drafted and proportionate.
Employers should consider whether their clauses:
- reflect the actual cost of the training provided, rather than an inflated or general estimate;
- reduce over time in a way that fairly reflects the employer’s diminishing need for protection;
- distinguish between different reasons for termination, for example resignation, dismissal, redundancy or ill-health;
- avoid applying automatically where the employee is dismissed or leaves for reasons unrelated to joining a competitor or using the training elsewhere;
- are proportionate when viewed against the employee’s salary, seniority and bargaining position; and
- are explained clearly to the employee before they are signed.
Practical takeaway
Training fee clawback clauses remain a useful tool for employers, but they must be tailored to the legitimate interest being protected. A broad, one-size-fits-all repayment obligation is more likely to be challenged, particularly where it applies to junior or lower-paid employees and operates as a significant financial deterrent to leaving.
Employers who use training repayment agreements should review them in light of this decision to ensure they are reasonable, proportionate and drafted with sufficient nuance. Employees who are asked to sign such agreements should also take care to understand the potential financial consequences before doing so.
Our Employment team advises employers on employment contracts, restrictive covenants and training repayment provisions. If you would like advice on reviewing or drafting a clawback clause, please get in touch with our team.
We publish blogs and social media posts to give a general overview of legal and commercial issues, relevant at the time of publication, which we hope you will find interesting. Please note that legal rules often change depending on the specific facts of a situation. The law also changes over time following changes in legislation or new court cases. We do not actively update our blogs or posts once they are published to reflect changes in the law.
As such, our blogs and posts are not intended to advise you on the law and must not be relied upon as legal advice. If you require advice on a particular issue then please contact us and we will be pleased to help.