Resources: Blog

The Value of Restraint of Trade Clauses


Restrainted Love

Restraint of trade clauses are often used in employment contracts to prevent or limit an employee from engaging in conduct that is adverse or inconsistent with the employer’s interests once employment has ended. Typically, employees are restrained from soliciting clients or establishing competing businesses.

Restraint of trade clauses are often used in employment contracts to prevent or limit an employee from engaging in conduct that is adverse or inconsistent with the employer’s interests once employment has ended. Typically, employees are restrained from soliciting clients or establishing competing businesses.

In a previous Employment Law E-update, we outlined to employers the importance of restraint of trade clauses in employment contracts and how they can be enforced through the courts.

Two recent decisions highlight the value of post-employment restraint of trade clauses for employers.


Workpac Healthcare Pty Ltd v Branka Rovic, Supreme Nursing Pty Ltd, Principissa Bellatricus Pty Ltd and Elite Duce Pty Ltd [2017] QDC 22

In this case the employer was a labour hire and recruitment firm, primarily in the nursing and health care industry. The employer’s clients included Queensland Health and the Queensland Department of Justice. As a Business Development Manager, the employee was the primary point of contact for clients and had unrestricted access to the employer’s confidential information.

The employee resigned from her employment which took effect from October 2016. It was later discovered by the employer that the employee’s log-ins had been used to copy confidential information to a USB. The employee’s employment contract contained confidentiality provisions and non-solicitation clauses which restricted the employee from engaging in recruitment for third parties in the nursing or health sector for a six month period. Immediately following her resignation, the employee registered her own businesses and within days she had placed nursing labour hire candidates at a correctional centre.

The employer commenced proceedings in the Queensland District Court to seek an injunction against the employee from using its confidential information and from soliciting its clients and candidates. The employee argued that at the time of her resignation, the employer had agreed to remove her restraint provisions and would not enforce them. The Queensland District Court held that it was improbable that the employer had agreed to release the employee from her restraints, particularly as much of the employer’s income had come from placing candidates in corrective services.

The Court ordered the employee to be restrained from soliciting orders from the employer’s clients for labour management services, placing candidates and from soliciting the employer’s candidates. In granting the interlocutory injunction, it was noted that the employee could continue to work in other recruitment and labour hire roles – just not those related to the nursing or health care industry.


Devil Dog Pty Ltd v Cook [2017] WASC 27

The employee in this case entered into a Deed of Restraint with the employer which was associated with the purchase of the employee’s hydraulic servicing business “Matchtec Hydraulics” (Matchtec).

The relevant provision restrained the employee from engaging in certain activities, which included engaging in a similar business, soliciting employees and clients of the employer in Western Australia for a period of ten years.

Not long after his resignation, the employee commenced employment with another business which also serviced and repaired hydraulic cylinders. The employer sought an injunction after it received reports from customers that the employee made disparaging remarks about Matchtec and sought to solicit their business for his new employer.

The employee submitted that the industry was competitive and customers often shopped around when awarding jobs. The employee denied approaching former customers or making disparaging remarks about Matchtec, but rather customers had approached him to complain about the quality of work. The employee claimed that he did not look at the terms of the Deed or obtain legal advice as he had planned to return to the United Kingdom with his family. The employee also submitted that he was not qualified to work outside of the industry and could not obtain any income if he did not work.

Whilst noting that a ten year restraint period was “at the outer edge of what may be considered to be reasonable”, on balance, the Western Australian Supreme Court granted the injunction restraining the employee until the full matter was heard. The Court identified that the purchase price of the business included a large portion for goodwill, indicating customer loyalty. The Court was also not satisfied that the employee could not earn a living outside of the industry, noting that he had resigned before he joined the other business.


Lessons for employers

Both of these recent cases highlight that employers should be on the front foot with enforcing post-employment restraints. This could be as simple as reminding exiting employees by letter that they are subject to restraints and the details of those restraints. If a breach is suspected, employers should act quickly and request undertakings from the employee, seeking assistance of the courts to enforce the restraint if necessary.


Similar articles

Commission finds termination letter sent to inactive email address was not notification of dismissal

You've got mail!

Given the serious nature of matters such as dismissals, employers should, as far as reasonably practicable, communicate such matters in person to ensure that there is no confusion about when the employee was made aware of any issues with their employment.


Fair Work Commission finds dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of an employee’s heat of the moment remark

You’re bacon me crazy

In the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, the primary remedy is reinstatement. This means the employer is ordered to return the employee to their employment in the position they held immediately prior to their dismissal or another position on no less favourable terms.


Fair Work Commission finds employer’s failure to comply with its consultation obligations rendered an employee’s dismissal to be unfair

Pick up the phone

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented effect on Australian businesses. Employers have had to, with little notice, adapt to these changing circumstances to try and minimise the adverse impact of lockdowns on the business and its employees.


Offers of alternative employment in redundancy cases

An offer you can refuse

In most cases of redundancy, employers have an obligation to consult with affected employees about the proposed redundancy and consider whether or not anything can be done to mitigate or minimise the impact on the employee, such as redeployment or obtaining other acceptable employment for the employee.


FWC finds that employee’s employment ended at end of fixed term and was not dismissed

Time goes by so slowly

Access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is on the basis that the employee is “dismissed” from the employment. A jurisdictional objectional can be raised if the employee has not been actually dismissed by the employer.


Commission finds employer’s suspicion of an employee’s misconduct was not a valid reason for dismissal

Under suspicion

If considering taking disciplinary action due to an employee’s misconduct, it is critical that an employer makes a decision based on wrongdoing as opposed to a mere suspicion of wrongdoing.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.