A restraint of trade clause aims to prevent an employee from working for a competitor or starting up a business in competition with the employer after the employment relationship has ended. Restraint of trade clauses are prima facie void. In other words, they are often not enforceable unless they are:

  • 1. reasonable as between the parties; and
  • 2. not unreasonable in the public interest.

unfair restraint of trade lawyers

In the case of Just Group Ltd v Peck [2016], VSCA 334 the Supreme Court of Victoria held that a restraint clause can only protect “legitimate interests of the employer” and cannot extend any further than that.

As a general rule, an employer does not have a legitimate interest in preventing an ex-employee attaining new employment, even if that employment is with a competitor. The surrounding circumstances and facts of a case are considered when determining the reasonableness of such a clause. For example, the Court may consider:

  • the interests that the restraint seeks to protect;
  • the employee’s current role versus their previous role;
  • the geographical area of the restraint;
  • the timeframe over which the restraint will operate; and
  • the nature of the industry.

In Just Group Ltd v Peck [2016] VSCA 334 the Court also stated that “an employer does not have a legitimate interest in protecting itself from competition per se”. As a result, the employer failed to establish a legitimate business interest to rebut the presumption that the clause was void.

Notwithstanding, a restraint of trade clause may be upheld to prevent an employee, who has obtained confidential information during their previous employment, from engaging with a competitive business that could use that information or prevent an employee from soliciting customers of the former employer. As such, confidentiality and non-solicitation obligations will continue to operate and be enforceable as they are legitimate business interests.

Notably, in Commsupport Pty Ltd v Mulligan & Mirow [2018] QDC 134 the Court stated that a restraint on solicitation of customers is much more likely to be considered reasonable if the employee was involved in developing a relationship with those specific customers. The fact that an employee had contact with customers will rarely be enough, in and of itself, to enforce the restraint. A restraint relating to customer connections is likely to be upheld in situations where the employee holds influence over the customers.

Please contact our lawyers at McDonald Murholme if you have any further questions regarding this issue.

Our clients' satisfaction is pivotal to our own success.

  • July 2020

    I wouldn't hesitate to recommend McDonald Murholme. From the initial consultation, right through to the resolution process, the entire team was supportive, knowledgable and approachable and made what can be a difficult situation much easier. Specifically Trent and Alexandra provided a high level of service, and engaged with me in a very personable manner. I am extremely satisfied with the service I received.
  • July 2020

    I couldn't recommend the team from McDonald Murholme more. Mr Sam Nottle was efficient, professional and achieved a wonderful result. If you are questioning whether to go ahead with an employment matter legally, I would urge you to do so. The team at McDonald Murholme made the process easy & reduced all of my anxiety and stress. Thank you again, Mr Nottle & team, I can't express my appreciation enough.
  • June 2020

    I found Arthur Hambas & Katherine Boyles extremely professional & compassionate in my dealings with them. After telling Arthur that I felt the details surrounding my redundancy felt wrong he took on my case & secured me a better payout from my employer. I would not hesitate to recommend Mcdonald Murholme to anyone that has a feeling that something isn't quite right. I greatly appreciate everything you did.
  • May 2020

    Extremely happy with the service received from all the staff members i had to deal with. The lawyer allocated for my case (Michael Kriewaldt) was extremely professional and handled the case very smoothly. Highly recommend their services.
  • May 2020

    I found Arthur Hambas & Katherine Boyles extremely professional & compassionate in my dealings with them. After telling Arthur that I felt the details surrounding my redundancy felt wrong he took on my case & secured me a better payout from my employer. I would not hesitate to recommend Mcdonald Murholme to anyone that has a feeling that something isn't quite right. I greatly appreciate everything you did.
  • April 2020

    The solicitors at the firm were very prompt and actioned my complaint against my employer very quickly. I obtained the result I wanted, in fact, I got a better result than what I had originally asked for. I was very pleased with the results and would highly recommend McDonald Murholme.
  • March 2020

    I would like to say that McDonald Murholme have treated me with nothing but professionalism and also great service. Trent, a principal in the firm is attentive to your needs and will ensure your case is handled with care and mindful consideration to all parameters involved.

Speak to an employment lawyer who has acted for thousands of employees like you.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.