Case 2303060/2019 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr M Bennett (2) Mr C Day v Geeks Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2303060/2019
- Decision date
- 23 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr M Bennett (2) Mr C Day
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThese claims concerned Geeks Ltd's deductions from the claimants' wages under training-cost claw-back provisions in their contracts. The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to consider both the penalty and restraint of trade arguments within the unlawful deductions claims under section 13 ERA 1996. It accepted that the deductions were made pursuant to the contracts of training investment and clause 4.3 of the employment contracts, but rejected the contention that the provisions were unenforceable.
On restraint of trade, the tribunal found that the clauses did not restrict the claimants from working for others after leaving Geeks Ltd. It placed weight on the fact that the claimants entered the arrangements knowingly, that Mr Day negotiated a higher salary before accepting, that Mr Bennett understood the repayment terms, and that the contracts imposed reciprocal obligations on Geeks Ltd to provide the specified training. It concluded that the bargain was fair in the Macaulay sense, or alternatively that any restraint was justified.
On penalty, the tribunal held that the training-cost debt was a primary obligation on the face of the contracts, but in any event it was not a penalty. It found that the estimates in the contracts were a genuine pre-estimate of the training costs and that the sums outstanding when each claimant left were not out of proportion to Geeks Ltd's legitimate interest in protecting its training investment. The unlawful deduction claims were therefore dismissed.
The tribunal did, however, find a section 8 ERA 1996 breach in relation to itemised pay statements. The April and May 2019 deductions were not itemised on the payslips or otherwise set out in a prior written statement. It made declarations under section 12(3), but declined to award any sum under section 12(4) because the claimants knew the amounts said to be owed, had been offered instalment arrangements, suffered no loss from the omission, and the deductions did not cover the full debt claimed by Geeks Ltd.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal rejected the claimants' challenge to the claw-back deductions. Mr Bennett's April and May 2019 deductions totalled £2,194.81 and Mr Day's totalled £2,754.65; the training-cost provisions were held enforceable, not unlawful restraints of trade and not penalty clauses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found that the April and May 2019 pay statements for both claimants did not contain the particulars required by section 8 ERA 1996. It made declarations under section 12(3) but declined to make any monetary award under section 12(4). | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.8 ERA 1996
- s.12 ERA 1996
- Cleeve Link Ltd v Bryla
- Makdessi v Cavendish Square Holdings
- A Schroeder Music Publishing Co Ltd v Macaulay
- Marshall v N M Financial Management
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.