Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Clauses in Australia: A Practical Guide

In Australia’s competitive business environment, protecting commercial interests often relies on non-compete and non-solicitation clauses. These clauses are common in employment contracts, business sale agreements, and franchise arrangements. They can safeguard confidential information, client relationships, and goodwill—but their effectiveness depends on careful drafting and alignment with Australian law.

This guide explains these clauses in depth, how courts assess them, and best practices for creating enforceable restraints.

What Are Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Clauses?

Though closely related, non-compete and non-solicitation clauses serve distinct purposes:

• Non-compete clauses: Prevent an individual or entity from engaging in business that competes with the former employer or business for a defined period and in a specific geographic area.
• Non-solicitation clauses: Stop former employees, partners, or sellers from approaching clients, suppliers, or employees of the previous business.

These clauses are designed to protect a business’s confidential information, market position, and relationships, which are often difficult or impossible to replace quickly.

Why These Clauses Matter

Restraint clauses are not just formalities—they protect tangible and intangible business assets. Key scenarios include:

• Employment transitions: A senior employee leaving for a competitor may have knowledge of client lists, pricing strategies, or internal processes. Without enforceable restraints, this knowledge can be leveraged against the former employer.
• Business sales: When a business is sold, the purchaser is acquiring goodwill—the client base, brand reputation, and operational relationships. A seller starting a competing business immediately after a sale can undermine the value of that goodwill.
• Franchises and partnerships: Franchise systems and partnerships rely on shared branding, confidential operational knowledge, and customer relationships. Restraint clauses protect these from exploitation after a relationship ends.

Without appropriately structured clauses, businesses risk losing valuable competitive advantages.

Enforceability Under Australian Law

Australian courts do not automatically enforce restraint clauses. Instead, they evaluate whether the restraint is reasonable, necessary, and proportional to achieve its object.

Key Legal Principles

• Legitimate business interest: A restraint must protect a real interest, such as confidential information, client relationships, or goodwill (in the case of business sales). Courts will not enforce clauses created solely to prevent competition, or which prevent a person from being employed in their vocation unreasonably.
• Reasonableness: The clause must balance the interests of the business with the individual’s right to work. Overly restrictive clauses that unreasonably limit someone’s earning capacity are likely to fail.
• Judicial interpretation: Cases such as Just Group Ltd v Peck [2016] VSC 614 demonstrate that courts assess restraints based on the industry, role, and individual circumstances, and that restraints can fail where improperly drafted.

If a restraint dispute results in litigation, Courts will scrutinise the scope, duration, and geographic reach of the clause to ensure it is justified and proportionate to protect the interests that it is designed to protect.

Drafting Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Clauses

The key to enforceability lies in drafting clauses that are clear, specific, and balanced regarding their scope and duration of application.

Scope and Duration

• Employment contracts: A typical enforceable period is 3–12 months, depending on the employee’s role and access to confidential information. Senior executives may justify longer restraints, while junior employees generally cannot.
• Business sales: Periods of 2–3 years may be acceptable, particularly to protect goodwill or specialised knowledge that the seller could exploit in a competing venture.

Defining Coverage

• Clauses should clearly outline whether they apply to direct competitors, specific clients, or employees.
• Clarity in the drafting of the clause will prevent ambiguity and increases enforceability.

Cascading or Tiered Clauses

• Using a tiered approach (e.g., 12 months nationwide, 6 months statewide, 3 months locally) allows courts to enforce the portion deemed reasonable if the full restriction is challenged.

Defining Key Terms

• Define terms like “competition,” “solicitation,” and “confidential information.”
• Clear definitions will reduce misinterpretation.

Carve-Outs

• Allowing work in non-competing roles demonstrates fairness and improves enforceability.
• Example: A software developer may be restricted from joining a competing software firm serving the same niche clients but allowed to work in unrelated tech roles.

Employees vs Business Sellers

The law treats employees and business sellers differently because of the nature of the interest being protected.

Employee Restraints

• Governed primarily by common law, with courts scrutinising post-employment limitations carefully.
• In New South Wales, the Restraints of Trade Act 1976 allows courts to modify overly broad restraints, rather than void them entirely.
• Example: A junior marketing employee may not have access to key client information, so a broad non-compete is unlikely to be enforced, whereas a senior account manager may justify a 12-month restraint over key clients.

Business Seller Restraints

• Non-compete clauses prevent sellers from immediately launching a competing business.
• Non-dealing clauses restrict sellers from contacting former clients, even if initiated by the client.
• Courts assess whether restraints protect goodwill or legitimate business interests, rather than simply eliminate competition.

Common Disputes and Legal Remedies

Disputes commonly arise when former employees or business sellers breach or challenge the enforceability of non-compete and non-solicitation clauses. Understanding the types of disputes and available remedies can help businesses draft clauses that are both enforceable and practical.

Common Disputes

• Early competition: A former employee or seller may start a business in the same industry before the restraint period expires, directly competing with the former employer or buyer.
• Client or employee solicitation: Individuals may contact former clients or staff in violation of a non-solicitation clause, potentially diverting business or causing staff turnover.
• Ambiguity disputes: Disagreements may arise over the interpretation of key terms, such as “competition” or “solicitation,” particularly if the clause is broadly drafted.

Legal Remedies

Available legal remedies are:

• Injunctions: Courts can issue orders preventing ongoing or imminent breaches, such as stopping a former employee from soliciting clients during the restraint period.
• Damages: Compensation may be awarded for financial losses caused by breaches, including lost profits, client loss, or damage to goodwill.

By understanding these common disputes and remedies, businesses can draft more precise, reasonable clauses, anticipate potential conflicts, and protect their commercial interests effectively.

Remote Work and Geographic Restrictions

The rise of remote and hybrid work has changed how geographic limits are viewed. Courts are increasingly questioning broad territorial restraints when an employee or former owner can perform work digitally from anywhere. For example, a nationwide restriction may be considered unreasonable if the individual’s role could be performed entirely online without affecting clients or operations.

Businesses should evaluate whether traditional restraint approaches remain effective in a digital and remote work environment.

Practical Guidance

When implementing restraint clauses:

1. Assess the risk: Identify employees, clients, or business areas most critical to protect.
2. Tailor clauses: Avoid generic, one-size-fits-all clauses; focus on key risks.
3. Document relationships: Maintain records of client interactions, employee roles, and business processes.
4. Review regularly: Update clauses as your business or industry evolves.
5. Seek specialist legal advice: Lawyers with litigation experience can draft enforceable clauses and guide enforcement strategies.

Conclusion

Non-compete and non-solicitation clauses are valuable tools to protect business interests, but their effectiveness relies on careful drafting, reasonableness, and legal compliance. They should be specific, proportionate, and targeted to the individual role or business context.

Specialist legal advice is crucial when drafting or reviewing these clauses, or when disputes arise. Allied Legal’s commercial and litigation lawyers regularly assist businesses in structuring enforceable restraint clauses and navigating related disputes, providing practical guidance to safeguard commercial interests.