Geeks Ltd (Appellant) v Watts (Respondent)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0126

Parties

Appellant(s)

Geeks Limited

Respondent(s)

Joseph Henry Watts

Issue

Is a contractual scheme, entitling a company to recover training costs from an employee after that employee has terminated their employment relationship with the business, unenforceable as an unlawful restraint of trade?

Facts

The Appellant, Geeks, offered the Respondent, Mr Watts, a position as a trainee ‘quality assurance engineer/tester’ in its IT business. Mr Watts accepted this offer by, amongst other things, signing a “Training Contract”. The Training Contract set out the six-month programme of formal training Mr Watts was to receive from Geeks and the £8,108 cost of that training (the “Training Cost Debt”). It also contained Mr Watts’ obligation to meet the Training Cost Debt by one or a combination of two repayment methods. The first method was by ‘work contribution’: if Mr Watts worked at Geeks for a prescribed period, the Training Contract Debt would be written off. The second method was by ‘monetary payment’: if Mr Watts’ employment ended before he had written off the Training Cost Debt under the first route, Mr Watts was obligated to pay 1/18th of the outstanding balance each month until paid in full (the “Clawback Provisions”). Mr Watts worked for Geeks for 8 months, leaving Geeks 2 months after the 6-month training programme came to an end. Mr Watts departed Geeks to take up a job as a quality assurance engineer at a different firm, who were paying Mr Watts £12,000 more per year. Geeks subsequently brought an action to recover the Training Cost Debt, Mr Watts having failed to pay it on request. Mr Watts argued that Geeks could not enforce the Clawback Provisions on the basis that they constituted an unlawful restraint of trade. Geeks succeeded before the Deputy District Judge at first instance. The court held that, although the Clawback Provisions were a restraint of trade, they protected a legitimate interest and were not unreasonable. Mr Watts’ appeal to the County Court at Central London failed, the court upholding the first instance decision. Mr Watts’ further appeal nonetheless succeeded, the Court of Appeal holding that the Clawback Provisions were an unjustified restraint of trade. Geeks now appeals to the Supreme Court.