Tweet
Terminology and Court Dismissal query
I went to court yesterday as the defendant of a claim to do with training costs from a previous employer. However, within 5 minutes of being in the court room (it was a small claims court) it was dismissed by the judge due to the claimant's company name being incorrect. They mentioned that it was incorrect on the claim form and also on my contract compared to what the claimant was saying.
My first question is this, if the case was dismissed by the judge for that reason, could the claimant take me to court again for the same claim if it has already been dismissed once?
My second question is that whilst in the court room the judge mentioned a term that I unfortunately have forgotten. It started with either 'Restraint' or 'Restrictive' (i know it wasn't restrictive covenant'). It was to do with the fact that the contract stated that I had to work for the employer for 3 years before the cost of training decreased 25% every three months otherwise i had to pay back the full cost if i left before the 3years - they said there was a term and it is now known to be extremely unlawful to have someone tied down to that amount of years. They said this is due to if the employee knew that they had to pay back a certain sum and wasn't on a high income they could feel forced to stay in employment for that employer. For this reason, apparently not many employers will have a training contract for as long as 3 years.
If you would like me to elaborate further I am more than happy to. I apologise if I have not explained it in the best way.
My first question is this, if the case was dismissed by the judge for that reason, could the claimant take me to court again for the same claim if it has already been dismissed once?
My second question is that whilst in the court room the judge mentioned a term that I unfortunately have forgotten. It started with either 'Restraint' or 'Restrictive' (i know it wasn't restrictive covenant'). It was to do with the fact that the contract stated that I had to work for the employer for 3 years before the cost of training decreased 25% every three months otherwise i had to pay back the full cost if i left before the 3years - they said there was a term and it is now known to be extremely unlawful to have someone tied down to that amount of years. They said this is due to if the employee knew that they had to pay back a certain sum and wasn't on a high income they could feel forced to stay in employment for that employer. For this reason, apparently not many employers will have a training contract for as long as 3 years.
If you would like me to elaborate further I am more than happy to. I apologise if I have not explained it in the best way.
