By Simon Abraham

17 May 2017

Slavery was outlawed in the British Empire (including Australia) by 1833. The United States took a little longer but, even with a civil war to decide the question, slavery was outlawed there too by 1865.

What is the relevance of this to post employment restraints?

Post employment restraints, without proper limitations, seek to turn employees into modern day slaves – unable to pursue their career if they cease working for their current employer.

Courts justifiably refuse to enforce restraints of trade on the grounds of public policy. The Supreme Court and Court of Appeal recently took the opportunity to remind employers of the relevant principles in Just Group Ltd v Peck [2016] VSC 614 and [2016] VSCA 334.

Employers get one shot to put a valid and enforceable restraint in place. There need to be special circumstances that demonstrate the restraint is:

(a) reasonable as between the parties; and

(b) not unreasonable in the public interest.

The overall situation is relevant. Employment restraints are harder to enforce than, for instance, a restraint in a sale of business.

A restraint clause in favour of an employer will be reasonable as between the parties, if at the date of a contract the restraint clause is imposed to protect a legitimate interest of the employer and the restraint clause does no more than is reasonably necessary to protect that legitimate interest in its duration or extent.
It is well established that employers have a legitimate interest in protecting confidential information / trade secrets and customer connections. An employer may restrain an employee from being involved with a competing business that could use the confidential information.

The secret to drafting a valid restraint is for employers to have a tight and well defined restraint. In Just Group Ltd v Peck, the employer went too far. It listed 50 businesses that the employee was not to work for in any capacity after she left employment. The Court was not prepared to read down the restraint so as to make it enforceable as this was seen as rewriting an invalid restraint after the fact.

The Court of Appeal gave a stinging rebuke to the Just Group by citing a statement made by Justice Heydon some years earlier “The courts are referees, not players; they are not supposed to waste their time adapting illegal covenants at the instance of those who seek to benefit from the illegality”.

An employer has one shot to get this right by putting a valid and enforceable restraint in place at the time of contracting. An army of Queens Counsel will not be able to cobble together an invalid restraint after the fact.


Tisher Liner FC Law is experienced in drafting, reviewing and enforcing post-employment restraints. For more information please contact Simon Abraham or a member of the Employment Law Team.

Related Articles

View All
Employment Law / Small to Medium Enterprises

Full Federal Court allows double dipping for casual employees

Justice Bromberg and the Full Federal Court of Australia have once again delivered bad news for employers  In certain...
Read More
Employment Law / Small to Medium Enterprises / Start-ups & Emerging Enterprises

Fair Work Commission amends 99 Awards during COVID-19 Pandemic

On Wednesday, 8 April 2020, as a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic, a six (6) member Fair Work Commission full bench,...
Read More
Employment Law

New industrial manslaughter laws are no laughing matter for employers

What are the laws The new laws will be applicable to all employers, self-employed individuals and officers of a company...
Read More
Employment Law / Commercial Law / Litigation & Dispute Resolution

What employers need to know when letting someone go

A staff member may need to be let go because the business can no longer afford them, or perhaps they are just not...
Read More
Employment Law / Litigation & Dispute Resolution / Intellectual Property

Dude, Where’s my Business? High Court Delivers Warning to Employees and Competitors who engage in Dishonest Conduct to Get Ahead in the Game

The case of Ancient Foresters in Victoria Friendly Society Limited v Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Limited [2018]...
Read More
Employment Law / Litigation & Dispute Resolution / Construction

Does it Really Matter What You Call Your Employees? The Difference Between a Permanent and a Casual Employee.

The Federal Court found the casual employee worked a regular and continuous pattern of work for more than two years,...
Read More
Commercial Law / Construction / Employment Law

September 2018 Newsletter

September 2018 Newsletter See the full newsletter here Welcome TLFC Law are pleased to welcome Min Seetoh to the...
Read More
Commercial Law / Employment Law / Real Estate Agents

Are you complying with the Real Estate Industry Award? Don’t get caught out!

Changes to the Real Estate Industry Award 2010 Important changes to the Award include: Classification of employees and...
Read More
Not-for-Profit & Charities / Technology and Start Ups / Adverse Possession

TLFC – Award Finalist for Law Firm of the Year (Medium Category)

Tisher Liner FC are proud to be nominated as an award finalist in the 14th annual Victorian Legal Awards Medium Law...
Read More
Employment Law

First they came for the accountants…

With several popular restaurants recently making headlines for allegedly underpaying employees, it is a good time for...
Read More
Employment Law

Casual to Permanent Swap

The Fair Work Commission (Commission) will introduce a “ casual conversion ” clause into modern awards following a...
Read More
Employment Law

How discretionary are “Discretionary Employee Payments”?

These policies (or contacts of employment themselves) may incorporate a statement to the effect that these are ex...
Read More