<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[ELS Legal]]></title><description><![CDATA[ELS Legal – Expert advice in litigation, family, employment law & more. Trusted solicitors delivering results with clarity and care.]]></description><link>https://www.els.legal/blog</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2026 16:56:19 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://www.els.legal/blog-feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title><![CDATA[Training clawbacks after Geeks Ltd v Watts: what employers need to review ]]></title><description><![CDATA[You invest time and money training an employee, only for them to leave and use those newly acquired skills elsewhere. It is understandable why employers want to recover those costs. However, the recent Court of Appeal decision in Geeks Ltd v Watts [2026] shows that training clawback clauses must be carefully drafted and proportionate. Mr. Watts (W) joined Geeks Ltd (G) as a trainee quality assurance engineer on a salary of £18,000, rising over time to £22,000. Alongside his employment...]]></description><link>https://www.els.legal/post/training-clawbacks-geeks-ltd-v-watts</link><guid isPermaLink="false">6a6acc9e328f65b10659099e</guid><category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category><pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2026 13:09:49 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/979385_c98f92835a9d425cbbf1d6ead82711e4~mv2.png/v1/fit/w_1000,h_1000,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Hrushi Punjani</dc:creator></item></channel></rss>