Restraint of Trade Clauses: Are They Enforceable in Australia? (2026)
Non-compete and restraint of trade clauses are generally void unless the employer proves they are reasonable. Learn how courts assess enforceability, the new non-compete ban for workers under the high-income threshold, cascading clauses, and what to do if threatened.
What is a restraint of trade clause?
A restraint of trade clause is a contractual provision that restricts what an employee can do after their employment ends. The most common types are non-compete clauses (preventing the employee from working for a competitor or starting a competing business), non-solicitation clauses (preventing the employee from approaching the former employer's clients or customers), and non-poaching clauses (preventing the employee from recruiting former colleagues). These clauses are typically found in employment contracts, share option agreements, and partnership agreements. They specify a duration (e.g., 6 months, 12 months, 24 months), a geographic area (e.g., within 10 km, within New South Wales, within Australia), and the scope of restricted activity (e.g., any competing business, specific industry sectors). Restraint clauses serve a legitimate purpose in protecting an employer's confidential information, trade secrets, client relationships, and business goodwill. However, they also restrict a person's ability to earn a livelihood, which is why Australian law takes a sceptical approach. The starting point under Australian common law is that all restraints of trade are void and unenforceable unless the party seeking to enforce the restraint (the employer) can prove that it is reasonable in the circumstances.
The general rule: restraints are void unless reasonable
The fundamental principle in Australian law is that restraint of trade clauses are prima facie void — meaning they are presumed to be unenforceable unless the employer can demonstrate that the restraint is reasonable. This principle comes from the landmark English case Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company (1894) and has been consistently applied by Australian courts. To be enforceable, a restraint must satisfy two requirements. First, it must protect a legitimate business interest of the employer. Legitimate interests include confidential information and trade secrets, client and customer relationships, the stability of the employer's workforce, and goodwill of the business. A restraint cannot be used simply to prevent competition — competition alone is not a legitimate interest. Second, the restraint must go no further than is reasonably necessary to protect that legitimate interest. A restraint that is broader than necessary in terms of duration, geographic scope, or the activities restricted will be struck down as unreasonable. The burden of proof is on the employer to establish reasonableness. This means that if a dispute goes to court, it is the employer who must justify why the restraint is necessary and proportionate. The employee does not need to prove it is unreasonable — the employer must prove it is reasonable.
Factors courts consider when assessing enforceability
When a restraint of trade clause is challenged in court, the court considers a range of factors to determine whether it is reasonable and enforceable. Duration is critical — a 3-month restraint is much more likely to be upheld than a 24-month restraint. Courts generally view 6-12 months as the upper range of reasonableness for most employees, though longer periods may be justified for senior executives with access to highly sensitive information. Geographic scope is assessed relative to the employer's actual business area. A nationwide restraint for a business that only operates in one city is likely to be struck down. Industry scope matters — a restraint preventing any work in an entire industry is harder to justify than one limiting work with direct competitors. The employee's seniority and role are relevant — a restraint on a CEO with access to all strategic plans is more justifiable than one on a junior employee with limited confidential knowledge. The nature of the information the employee had access to (client lists, pricing strategies, product development plans) is assessed. Whether the employee received consideration (payment or benefit) specifically for agreeing to the restraint strengthens enforceability. Courts also consider the potential hardship to the employee if the restraint is enforced, and the broader public interest. Each case is assessed on its individual facts.
Cascading and ladder clauses
Many modern employment contracts include cascading or ladder restraint clauses. These are structured as a series of alternative restraints with decreasing levels of restriction. For example, a cascading clause might state: the employee must not work for a competitor within Australia for 24 months; if that is unenforceable, then within New South Wales for 18 months; if that is unenforceable, then within Sydney for 12 months; if that is unenforceable, then within 20 km of the employer's premises for 6 months. The purpose of cascading clauses is to give the court options — rather than striking down a single restraint as unreasonable, the court can read down to the highest level of restraint that is reasonable and enforceable. Australian courts have generally accepted cascading clauses as valid, provided each alternative level is clear and severable. The High Court confirmed in Woolworths Ltd v Olson (2004) that courts can sever unreasonable portions of a restraint and enforce the remainder, provided the reasonable portion reflects the parties' intention. However, cascading clauses are not a guarantee of enforceability. If even the narrowest level of the cascade is unreasonable, the entire restraint falls away. A poorly drafted cascade with levels that are all too broad will not save the employer. Employees should pay close attention to the narrowest level of any cascading clause in their contract.
The new non-compete ban for lower-income workers
In 2025, the Australian Government announced a proposed ban on non-compete clauses for workers earning below the high-income threshold. The policy, which is expected to come into effect in 2027, would prevent employers from including non-compete clauses in employment contracts for workers earning below the threshold (currently $175,000 per year, indexed annually). This reform targets the growing practice of imposing non-compete clauses on low and middle-income workers — including hairdressers, fitness instructors, childcare workers, and retail staff — who pose little genuine risk to an employer's confidential information or business goodwill. Research by the Treasury found that non-compete clauses suppress wages, reduce job mobility, and stifle competition, particularly for workers who lack the resources to challenge unreasonable restraints in court. The proposed ban would not affect non-solicitation or non-poaching clauses, which would remain subject to the existing common law reasonableness test. It would also not affect workers above the high-income threshold, who would continue to be subject to restraints assessed under the current framework. The reform is part of a broader package aimed at promoting competition and worker mobility. Until the legislation passes and commences, the existing common law principles continue to apply to all restraint of trade clauses.
Practical tips: before signing and after leaving
Before signing an employment contract with a restraint of trade clause, take these practical steps. Read the clause carefully and understand what it restricts, for how long, and over what geographic area. Negotiate before signing — restraint clauses are often negotiable, particularly for mid-level employees. Ask for the duration or scope to be reduced, or request that the clause only apply if you are terminated without cause. Seek legal advice, especially if the restraint is broad — an employment lawyer can assess whether the clause is likely to be enforceable and suggest amendments. If possible, get specific carve-outs for activities you may want to pursue (e.g., freelance work in a different sector, working for non-competing businesses). After leaving a job with a restraint clause, do not assume it is automatically enforceable — many restraints are never enforced, and many would not survive a court challenge. However, do not ignore it either. If your former employer sends a cease and desist letter or threatens legal action, seek legal advice immediately. Keep evidence of your new role's duties to demonstrate they do not compete with your former employer's business. Avoid taking confidential information, client lists, or proprietary materials when you leave — this strengthens any enforcement claim your former employer might make.
What to do if your former employer threatens enforcement
If your former employer threatens to enforce a restraint of trade clause against you, do not panic — but do take it seriously. First, obtain a copy of your employment contract and review the exact terms of the restraint. Note the duration, geographic scope, and restricted activities. Check whether it is a cascading clause and identify the narrowest level. Second, seek legal advice promptly. An employment lawyer can assess the likely enforceability of the clause based on your specific circumstances — your role, seniority, access to confidential information, and the nature of your new employment or business. Many employment lawyers offer free initial consultations, and community legal centres can provide guidance. Third, do not concede enforceability without legal advice. Many employers rely on intimidation — sending a threatening letter from their lawyers in the hope that the former employee will comply without challenging the restraint. In practice, many restraints would not be upheld by a court. Fourth, consider whether your former employer is likely to actually pursue court proceedings. Litigation is expensive, and many employers are unwilling to invest significant legal costs unless the employee poses a genuine competitive threat. Fifth, if proceedings are commenced, your former employer must apply for an interlocutory injunction to restrain you. The court will assess the balance of convenience and whether damages would be an adequate remedy. If you can demonstrate that the restraint is unreasonable, the injunction may be refused.
Try these free tools
Official resources
General information and estimates only — not legal, financial, or tax advice. Always verify with the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified professional.
Related articles
Enterprise agreements and Modern Awards both set workplace conditions, but they work differently. Learn the BOOT test, how EAs are made, zombie agreements, and how to check which applies to you.
National Employment Standards (NES) — Complete Summary of Your 11 RightsThe NES gives every Australian employee 11 minimum workplace rights. Here is a plain-English summary of each entitlement — maximum hours, leave, flexible arrangements, termination, and more.
Right to Disconnect Australia — What the New Law Means for YouAustralia's right to disconnect law lets employees refuse unreasonable out-of-hours contact. Learn who it covers, what counts as unreasonable, and how the FWC enforces it.