Commercially the qualification is potentially worth a lot as you can make a good profit from running the courses if you are qualified. So it could be perceived that the clawback is to pay for the opportunity to train me (there are only 6 others with the qualification in UK and Ireland). However, the actual cost of providing the training itself cost very little as it was maybe 10 hours of formal input from a Clinical Psychologist at £100 per hour. The difficult part is I had to teach for about 20 days being observed by my mentor but she would usually spend the time on her laptop checking her emails, and very little formal feedback was ever given. But I realise this would be difficult to prove as it's my word against hers apart from the proof of little formal evidence of feedback. If somebody else were to count all those days when she sat at the back, then it does cover the clawback. It is clear to me the clawback is just to discourage me setting up as a competitor but I'm not sure how strong my case to argue that would be.
Thanks for the answer.
I am particularly interested in the part that states ...if the employer has derived some benefit from the employee undertaking the training course during the fixed repayment period (e.g. where an employer has been able to charge customers more for an employee’s services by virtue of that training or qualification) then the amounts which may be recovered from the employee should be reduced to reflect that benefit.
I now run courses for this company who charge £150 per day for each attendee, usually for up to 12 per day (£1800) but sometimes up to 36. My fee is £650 per training day. They obviously cover venue and manual costs plus my travel/accommodation which I estimate at £300 per day. I|f we go over 12 they employ an assistant at £300 per day. They also have administration costs to cover. However even taking that into account it seems to be a heavy profit margin and even if I only work 1 year of the contract (around 30 days) I would have earned the company significant profits.
Would that mean my 'clawback provision' is more likely to perceived in the court as a penalty instead of a repayment?
Thanks for the additional advice.
It seems that it could be argued both ways and clearly will be down to the court to decide if I go down that route.
However, it is likely that if I try to argue the point legally that the costs of that outweigh the cost of the clawback provision or are there low cost legal options e.g., small claims court, even if I win?
Thanks Ben. Sorry for all the follow on questions.
The amount is exactly £10k. Does it have to below that (even by £1) to be small claims court?
Also, if I decide to pay the clawback provision and give them the 3 months notice as detailed in the contract, I presume then the contract would be deemed as closed and they would have no further control over me as the contract does not mention any restriction of trade following the completion of the contract.
Thanks Ben. That's really useful