7 minute read | August.03.2026
In this month’s highlights, our team summarises the latest developments in UK employment law and their implications for employers. Catch up on June’s highlights here.
In Geeks Ltd v Watts, the Court of Appeal (CoA) held that a training costs clawback provision in an employee’s contract of employment amounted to a restraint of trade because it impeded upon the employee’s ability to trade freely.
Background
The employee was employed by the employer as a trainee quality assurance engineer. Alongside his contract of employment, the employee signed a training contract stating that he would meet the costs of his training for the estimated value of £8,108. The amount would be offset on a pro-rated basis based on the duration of his employment with the employer. The training contract also stated that if the employee’s employment terminated before the training costs were fully repaid, then the balance would become repayable by the employee in instalments. The training contract further stated that nothing contained within it was intended to restrict the employee from pursuing alternative employment.
The employee resigned before any of the training costs debt was offset, to take up a role with another company. The employer sought to recover the training costs debt through County Court proceedings. The employee defended the claim on the grounds that the training clawback provision was an unlawful restraint of trade. The deputy district judge held that although the clawback provision could be a restraint of trade, it was not unreasonable and protected a legitimate business interest, which meant that it was enforceable. On appeal by the employee, this decision was upheld by a circuit judge.
Subsequent Appeal to the CoA
The employee subsequently appealed to the CoA. The CoA rejected the employer’s argument that the clawback provision was not a restraint of trade at all and was simply a debt that was capable of enforcement. The CoA held that the application of the restraint of trade doctrine focuses on the practical effect of the restraint and that it is a question of substance rather than form. The question was whether the clawback provision would or might impede the employee’s ability to trade freely, viewed at the time the contract of employment began.
The CoA allowed the appeal. The CoA held that a clause providing that all or part of the salary paid may be repayable to the employer in specified circumstances clearly engaged the restraint of trade doctrine. The doctrine was engaged in this case even though the clawback provision constituted an indirect restraint of trade that came into effect some time after the employee left the employer.
The CoA also held that it could not be said that the clawback provision went no further than reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest. The clawback applied irrespective of the reason for the termination of employment (save for redundancy). Further, when viewing the clawback provision broadly, the employee’s salary in the early months of his employment was effectively reduced to the equivalent of an unpaid intern (accounting for the training costs debt).
The CoA also noted that the employee did not have independent legal advice when signing the contract of employment and that there was inequality of bargaining power between the employee and employer.
Key Takeaways for Employers
Clawback provisions could amount to a restraint of trade and employers should not assume that this will not be the case.
Employers should consider whether the clawback provision goes no further than is reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest – if not, it could be an unlawful restraint of trade.
In Wolfe v Taka Mayfair Ltd, the business owners unexpectedly called the employee to a meeting without notice or an explanation of the purpose of the meeting. At the meeting, the employer dismissed the employee. The employee did not request that he be accompanied to the meeting, though the employee did not have prior notice that the meeting could result in his dismissal.
The employee claimed that the employer had breached section 10, Employment Relations Act 1999 (ERelA) because he had not been given the right to be accompanied to what he later understood to be a disciplinary hearing. He attempted to amend his employment tribunal (ET) claim to include this alleged breach. The ET refused the amendment application on the basis that this claim was bound to fail. The employee appealed to the EAT.
The EAT’s Findings
The EAT held that the right to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing arises only if the worker requests that they be accompanied. There is no duty on employers to explain what the meeting is about or to highlight to an employee the right to be accompanied, from the perspective of section 10, ERelA.
That meant the employer had not breached section 10, ERelA, but the EAT noted that a request made during such a meeting to be accompanied could be enough to engage section 10, ERelA.
Key Takeaway for Employers
Employees do not have an automatic right to be accompanied to a disciplinary (or grievance) hearing – they have to request that they be accompanied.
That being said, it is common practice for employers to inform employees of their right to be accompanied. Further, if a meeting is held without warning and the employee is not informed of their right to be accompanied, this could weaken any defence an employer may have to an unfair dismissal claim brought by the employee.
In June 2026, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) published its research into workplace harassment. This research focused on the causes of workplace harassment and the effective ways that employers can address these issues.
Key Research Findings
The research identified that factors such as low wages, male-dominated work structures and hierarchy within the workplace were key risk factors for workplace harassment and that sexual harassment disproportionately affects ethnic minorities, young people, women and those with a disability.
A low rate of reporting workplace harassment should not be used in assessing the level of harassment because individuals may fear speaking up.
The EHRC found that policies aimed at tackling harassment must be implemented consistently. There should be training and communication on tackling workplace harassment.
Further, there should be various reporting routes available to staff, such as external and digital options.
Steps Employers Can Take
The research noted that the behaviours of senior and middle managers are essential in sending a clear message.
Practical insights noted in the research for employers are: