Bondi, probably if you were in a position to give a bond or cash you would not be in receipt of JSA in the first place, anyway, not withstanding that scenario and second mortgages, borrowing from relatives, etc etc. the Bond system is legal and enforceable..training costs are not limited to aviation and test cases tend to fall in favour of the contract: Example:A much more limiting clause was considered in the case of Strathclyde Regional Council v Neil [1984] IRLR 11. Here, a provision in the employee's contract required her to refund a sum calculated on the basis of her salary, course materials and examination fees if she left within two years of completing a study course paid for by the local authority.
This was a liquidated damages clause because it represented genuine loss to the employer, contemplated at the outset. The clause only sought recovery of the cost of training the employee and was proportionate to the unexpired portion of the two year period. The clause was upheld as valid. .
A clause providing full recovery of course fees even in the event that employee resigns, say 10 years later, would be a penalty clause. It would not seek to place limitation on the employer's right to recover damages for actual loss. The benefits of the course would have been realised in the years of employment following the course and the employer will have had that benefit. In this context NLH could reasonably argue that 3 years is a suitable period to recover the training costs and benefit from them.
Of perhaps more " concern" would a "contract " signed with NLH for training be enforceable when " employed through a third party" .. probably not..in this event the training costs would have had to been paid by the agency. Of course, no agency is going to stump up costs for pilot training and probably this case, if tested, would fail..