And speaking of unknowable universes brings me to case of Geeks Limited v Watts 2026, and whether clawing back training costs from a departing employee amounts to an unlawful restraint of trade. Not an easy one to guess at first glance.

Mr Watts joined Geeks Limited as a trainee QA Engineer in March 2019 with a starting salary of £18,000, increasing to £20,000 and then £22,000 in the following two years.

Alongside his employment contract, Mr Watts entered into a separate training contract. This recorded a “training cost debt” of £8,108, which primarily covered mentoring and time spent on study and practical training. The agreement provided that the debt would be reduced by 1/18th for each complete month Mr Watts remained employed after the first 12 months. If his employment ended before the full amount had been written off, he would be required to repay the remaining balance, subject to a 5% discount if payment was made within 10 days of termination.

Mr Watts resigned in November 2019 following the refusal of a pay rise, approximately eight months after starting his employment, to take up a new role with a salary of £30,000. Geeks sought to recover the full £8,108 training cost from him. Mr Watts argued that the clawback provisions amounted to an unlawful restraint of trade because they created a financial disincentive to leaving his employment.

Geeks then commenced proceedings against Mr Watts in the County Court to recover the £8,108.

The County Court found in favour of Geeks and ordered Mr Watts to pay the £8,108 debt, together with interest.

Mr Watts took his case to the Court of Appeal. His first appeal was dismissed on the basis that the clawback provisions engaged the restraint of trade doctrine but were justified.

Mr Watts then attempted a further appeal to the Court.

The Court allowed Mr Watts' further appeal. They held that the training fee clawback did engage the restraint of trade doctrine. A provision does not have to expressly prevent an employee from working elsewhere to amount to a restraint of trade. A significant financial penalty for leaving employment can have the same practical effect by discouraging an employee from moving to another employer.

The Court accepted that an employer may have a legitimate interest in maintaining a stable and trained workforce. However, Geeks still had to demonstrate that the restraint was reasonable and went no further than necessary to protect that interest.

The Court found that the provisions were too wide. The repayment obligation applied regardless of why Mr Watts left, other than in cases of redundancy. It also applied regardless of whether he moved to a competitor, took a role in a different industry, received a salary increase, or even obtained another job at all.

The Court was particularly concerned about the effect on a low-paid employee at the beginning of their career. The repayment obligation meant that, viewed retrospectively, Mr Watts' first months of employment could effectively become a period of unpaid work because of the debt created by the training provisions.

The Court also rejected the argument that the provisions were simply a contractual debt and therefore outside the restraint of trade doctrine. If this were the case, an employer could impose substantial repayment obligations on employees without those provisions being subject to any assessment of reasonableness.

The appeal was therefore allowed and the judgments in favour of Geeks were set aside.

This case is significant because it shows that training cost clawback provisions can be treated as restraints of trade where they create a significant financial disincentive for an employee to leave.

Employers should therefore consider carefully how training repayment clauses operate in practice. A provision which requires repayment regardless of the reason for leaving, the employee's next role or the benefit the employer has received from the training, may be difficult to justify.

Training repayment provisions should be carefully tailored to the legitimate interest being protected, with consideration given to the circumstances in which repayment will apply and how the amount owed reduces over time. Employers should also consider whether the financial burden created by the provision is proportionate, particularly where it applies to lower-paid or junior employees.