Are employee non-competes enforceable in Singapore?
Only if the employer can justify them. Singapore has no statute that governs non-competes. A post-employment restraint is treated as a restraint of trade, which the courts presume is void and contrary to public policy . To displace that presumption the employer must show the restraint protects a legitimate proprietary interest — not a mere wish to avoid competition — and that the clause is reasonable both between the parties and in the interests of the public .
Singapore is not a per se ban jurisdiction like California or North Dakota, where the covenant is void no matter how narrow. Nor is it a statutory-reasonableness jurisdiction with fixed numeric limits. It is a pure common-law restraint-of-trade jurisdiction: the starting point is that every post-employment covenant — non-compete, customer non-solicitation, employee non-solicitation, or non-dealing — is presumptively unenforceable, and the employer must earn enforcement clause by clause.
The Court of Appeal's decision in Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David is the controlling modern authority and supplies the analytical framework used throughout this note. It requires an employer to clear three cumulative hurdles, examined in the sections that follow: a legitimate proprietary interest, reasonableness between the parties, and reasonableness in the public interest.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2007-11-29
A.2 Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan DavidA legitimate proprietary interest is a threshold requirement: there must always be such an interest for the court to protect before a restraint can be enforced at all.
There must always – and this is a fundamental legal proposition in this particular area of the law – be a legitimate proprietary interest which the court will then seek to protect by way of the doctrine of restraint of trade
See Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David [2007] SGCA 53; [2008] 1 SLR(R) 663.
Case law · 2007-11-29
A.1 Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan DavidRestraints of trade are presumptively contrary to public policy and void; the Court of Appeal adopts Lord Macnaghten's classic statement in Nordenfelt as the starting point for analysing a post-employment covenant.
All interference with individual liberty of action in trading, and all restraints of trade of themselves, if there is nothing more, are contrary to public policy, and therefore void.
See Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David [2007] SGCA 53; [2008] 1 SLR(R) 663.
Case law · 2007-11-29
A.3 Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan DavidA restraint will be upheld only if it is reasonable both as between the parties and in the interests of the public — the two limbs are cumulative.
To recapitulate, Clause C.1 must be reasonable not only as between the parties, but also in the interests of the public as well before it will be upheld by the court.
See Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David [2007] SGCA 53; [2008] 1 SLR(R) 663.
What must an employer prove to enforce a non-compete?
A legitimate proprietary interest worth protecting. A desire to avoid competition is never enough — a court will not enforce a covenant taken merely to shield the employer from a former employee's competition . The employer must point to a recognised interest such as trade secrets and confidential information, the employer's trade connection with its customers, or the maintenance of a stable, trained workforce — the last usually protected through an employee non-solicitation clause rather than a blanket bar on the employee joining a competitor .
The distinction is between protecting an asset and suppressing a rival. An employer has no protectable interest in stopping a departing employee from working for a competitor simply because the new employer competes . What the law protects instead is the employer's investment: secret information the employee was trusted with, the customer relationships the employee was placed to influence, and the integrity of the workforce the employee might poach. The employee's own general skill, experience, and know-how are not the employer's property and cannot be locked up.
How real this requirement is was shown in 2025. In FirstCom Academy Pte Ltd v Oom Academy Pte Ltd, the High Court dismissed an employer's suit on its restraint and non-solicitation clauses because the employer never established any legitimate proprietary interest in the first place — so the court did not even reach the question of whether the clause's scope was reasonable .
A clause that simply bars a former employee from joining or starting a competing business, without tying the restraint to a specific protectable interest, is the weakest possible position. Identify the actual interest — the confidential information, the customer connection, or the workforce — and draft the restraint around it, because an employer who cannot prove a legitimate proprietary interest loses before reasonableness is even considered .
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2005-03-28
B.1 Stratech Systems Ltd v Nyam Chiu ShinA court will never uphold a covenant taken by an employer merely to protect itself from competition by a former employee.
The court will never uphold a covenant taken by an employer merely to protect himself from competition by a former employee.
See Stratech Systems Ltd v Nyam Chiu Shin (alias Yan Qiuxin) [2005] SGCA 17; [2005] 2 SLR(R) 579.
Case law · 2007-11-29
B.3 Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan DavidAn employer has no legitimate interest in preventing a former employee from joining a competitor merely because the new employer is a competitor.
But an employer has no legitimate interest in preventing an employee, after leaving his service, from entering the service of a competitor merely on the ground that the new employer is a competitor.
See Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David [2007] SGCA 53; [2008] 1 SLR(R) 663.
Case law · 2007-11-29
B.2 Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan DavidTrade connection — the employer's relationship with and goodwill among its customers — is one of the legitimate proprietary interests recognised and protected in the employment context, alongside trade secrets and the maintenance of a stable trained workforce.
The second proprietary interest that is traditionally recognised as well as protected by the courts in the employment context is that of trade connection.
See Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David [2007] SGCA 53; [2008] 1 SLR(R) 663.
Case law · 2025-12-30
B.4 FirstCom Academy Pte Ltd v Oom Academy Pte LtdA 2025 High Court decision dismissing the employer's restraint claim because it failed to prove any legitimate proprietary interest, so the court never reached the reasonableness of the clause.
The Restraint of Trade Clauses in Mr Chew's and Ms Leong's LOAs are unenforceable on account of FCA failing to prove that it has a legitimate proprietary interest which ought to be protected by way of a restraint of trade clause.
See FirstCom Academy Pte Ltd v Oom Academy Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 266.
Can a non-compete protect information an NDA already covers?
Usually not, without more. If the confidential information is already protected by a separate confidentiality clause, the employer must show the non-compete protects a legitimate interest over and above that information — otherwise the court treats the non-compete as a bare attempt to stifle competition and strikes it down .
This is the single most important trap in Singapore non-compete drafting. The reasoning, which traces back to Stratech Systems Ltd v Nyam Chiu Shin and was reaffirmed in Man Financial, is that if a confidentiality clause already does the protective work, a non-compete adds nothing legitimate unless the employer can identify a distinct interest over and above that confidentiality protection — otherwise its real purpose must be to prevent competition, which is not a protectable interest.
Two High Court decisions in 2024 applied this directly against employers. In Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong, the court found serious doubt that the employer could rely on the protection of confidential information to validate a non-compete when an employment confidentiality agreement already covered that very interest . In MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko, the court made the same observation — any confidentiality concern was already addressed and protected by the contract's separate confidentiality clause . The lesson reinforces a related point from Stratech: an employer must particularise the confidential information it claims to protect, not gesture at it in the abstract .
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2024-01-11
C.1 Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck YongRestating the Stratech / Man Financial rule: where confidential information is already protected by another clause, the employer must show the non-compete covers a legitimate interest over and above that information, or it fails.
Where the protection of confidential information or trade secrets is already covered by another contractual clause, the covenantee will have to demonstrate that the restraint of trade clause in question covers a legitimate proprietary interest over and above the protection of confidential information or trade secrets.
See Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong [2024] SGHC 29.
Case law · 2024-01-11
C.2 Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck YongWhere a confidentiality agreement already protected the same interest, the court doubted the employer could rely on protection of confidential information to assert the validity of the non-competition restriction.
As set out above, given that such an interest in the protection of confidential information is already protected elsewhere by the ECA, there are serious doubts that Shopee would be able to rely on such an interest in asserting the validity of the Non-Competition Restriction.
See Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong [2024] SGHC 29.
Case law · 2005-03-28
C.4 Stratech Systems Ltd v Nyam Chiu ShinAn employer must particularise the confidential information it seeks to protect rather than assert it in the abstract.
It follows from the foregoing that an employer must particularize the confidential information which he seeks to protect.
See Stratech Systems Ltd v Nyam Chiu Shin (alias Yan Qiuxin) [2005] SGCA 17; [2005] 2 SLR(R) 579.
Case law · 2024-04-02
C.3 MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem MusienkoThe court observed that any confidentiality concern was already addressed and protected by the contract's separate confidentiality clause, undercutting reliance on confidential information to justify the non-compete.
Further, any issue of confidentiality is already addressed and protected by the Confidentiality Clause.
See MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko [2024] SGHC 94.
How long and how wide can a Singapore non-compete be?
There is no fixed limit. Reasonableness is decided case by case on the activity restrained, the geographic area, the duration, and the employee's seniority and actual influence. A restraint of indefinite duration is void , but a bounded restraint tied to a real interest can be upheld even across multiple countries .
Because the limits are judge-made rather than set by a code section, there is no statutory ceiling on duration or geography to anchor a covenant. The analysis is fact-specific in both directions. In Tan Kok Yong Steve v Itochu Singapore Pte Ltd, the High Court enforced a roughly two-year non-compete covering markets including Vietnam, Bangladesh, and the Philippines against a specialist trader who had genuine knowledge of and influence over the employer's customers in those markets, finding the activity, geographic, and temporal scope all reasonable .
At the other extreme, breadth is fatal. A restraint with no end date is void absent the most exceptional circumstances , and a restraint whose scope has only a tenuous connection to what the employee actually did will fail as overbroad. In MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko, the court refused to enforce a non-compete that barred the employee from any rival business regardless of role similarity, and criticised the clause's cascading, step-down structure as giving the employer multiple bites of the cherry on duration .
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2018-04-10
D.2 Tan Kok Yong Steve v Itochu Singapore Pte LtdA roughly two-year non-compete covering markets including Vietnam, Bangladesh, and the Philippines was enforced against a specialist trader with real customer influence; the activity, geographic, and temporal scope were all reasonable between the parties and not against the public interest.
In summary, I find that the activity scope, geographical scope and temporal scope of the Non-Competition Undertaking to be reasonable as between the parties and is not against the public interest.
See Tan Kok Yong Steve v Itochu Singapore Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 85.
Case law · 2012-07-31
D.1 Smile Inc Dental Surgeons Pte Ltd v Lui Andrew StewartA restraint of trade that operates for an indefinite period is, absent the most exceptional circumstances, necessarily void and unenforceable.
A restraint of trade that operates for an indefinite period of time is (absent the most exceptional circumstances, which are not present in this case) necessarily void and unenforceable.
See Smile Inc Dental Surgeons Pte Ltd v Lui Andrew Stewart [2012] SGCA 39; [2012] 4 SLR 308.
Case law · 2024-04-02
D.3 MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem MusienkoA non-compete that barred any rival work regardless of role similarity was unreasonable; the court criticised the cascading step-down structure as giving the employer multiple bites of the cherry on duration.
It appears that the claimant will have multiple bites of the cherry in relation to determining the duration of the Non-Compete Clause.
See MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko [2024] SGHC 94.
Can a Singapore court narrow an overbroad non-compete?
Only by deletion, never by rewriting. A Singapore court may apply the blue pencil — striking out offending words if what remains still makes grammatical sense and the bargain is unchanged — but it will not redraft a clause or read it down to a reasonable scope. The court will not rewrite the contract for the parties .
This is a sharp difference from jurisdictions that allow judicial reformation or notional severance. Singapore has not adopted the practice of reading an overly wide restraint down to whatever the court thinks reasonable; the most an employer can hope for is that genuinely severable, offending words can be excised while a coherent, narrower clause survives on its own terms.
“In other words, the court will not rewrite the contract for the parties.”
The practical consequence is that an employer cannot draft an aggressive clause and rely on a court to trim it to size. If the only way to save the covenant is to add words, substitute words, or reinterpret it more narrowly, the court will strike it down entirely. A cascading clause that offers the court a menu of progressively shorter durations does not solve this; as MoneySmart shows, that structure is itself treated as a red flag rather than a safe harbour .
Do not rely on a Singapore court to narrow an overbroad non-compete. Draft each restriction at a scope you can defend as reasonable on its own, because the court can delete severable words but will not rewrite the clause or read it down, and an unreasonably wide covenant simply fails .
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2007-11-29
E.1 Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan DavidSeverance in Singapore operates only through the blue-pencil test — striking out offending words without altering meaning or rendering the clause senseless. The court will not rewrite the contract for the parties or read an overbroad clause down to a reasonable scope.
In other words, the court will not rewrite the contract for the parties.
See Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David [2007] SGCA 53; [2008] 1 SLR(R) 663.
Case law · 2024-04-02
E.2 MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem MusienkoA cascading, step-down non-compete structure is treated as a defect — giving the employer multiple bites of the cherry on duration — not as a way to ensure a court will fall back to a shorter enforceable period.
It appears that the claimant will have multiple bites of the cherry in relation to determining the duration of the Non-Compete Clause.
See MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko [2024] SGHC 94.
Are non-competes from a business sale treated differently?
Yes — more leniently. When a covenant is given by the seller of a business to protect the goodwill the buyer paid for, Singapore courts take a more liberal approach than in the employment context, because the parties bargain on more equal terms . A multi-year restraint can be reasonable in that setting .
The leniency is comparative, not unlimited. Even a sale-of-business restraint must go no further than necessary to protect the interest involved . But the rationale that makes employment covenants suspect — unequal bargaining power and the risk of locking up a person's livelihood — is far weaker when a vendor sells a business for value and promises not to immediately compete away the goodwill just sold.
In CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon Ching, the Court of Appeal upheld a three-year restraint given by the seller of an aesthetics-medicine practice . The same decision confirms that a liquidated-damages clause attached to such a covenant is enforceable if it is a genuine pre-estimate of loss rather than a penalty .
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2010-02-01
F.1 CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon ChingCourts take a more liberal approach to restrictive covenants in the sale-of-business context than in the employment context.
These being the general principles applicable in this area of the law, we would, however, hasten to add that the courts take a more liberal approach when considering restrictive covenants in the context of a sale of business as compared to the situation where such a clause is contained in a contract of employment.
See CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon Ching [2010] SGCA 3; [2010] 2 SLR 386.
Case law · 2010-02-01
F.3 CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon ChingEven where a legitimate proprietary interest is shown, the court ensures the restraint goes no further than necessary to protect that interest.
Moreover, even where a legitimate proprietary interest is shown, the court will ensure that the covenant in restraint of trade goes no further than what is necessary to protect the interest concerned.
See CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon Ching [2010] SGCA 3; [2010] 2 SLR 386.
Case law · 2010-02-01
F.2 CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon ChingA three-year period of restraint given by the seller of a business was held not to be unreasonable.
These aforesaid considerations must be borne in mind when considering the reasonableness of the three-year period of restraint, which we find, with respect to the Judge, was not unreasonable.
See CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon Ching [2010] SGCA 3; [2010] 2 SLR 386.
Case law · 2010-02-01
F.4 CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon ChingA sum stipulated for breach is enforceable if it is a genuine pre-estimate of loss but not if it is a penalty.
Where parties stipulate in a contract the sum to be paid in the event of a breach, the contract sum is enforceable if it is a genuine pre-estimate of loss but not if it constitutes a penalty.
See CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon Ching [2010] SGCA 3; [2010] 2 SLR 386.
What if the employer wrongfully dismissed the employee?
The restraint may fall away. Under the principle in General Billposting, an employer who repudiates the contract — for example by dismissing the employee without the required notice — cannot then enforce the post-employment restraint, and the wrongfully dismissed employee is no longer bound by it .
The High Court applied this in Hengxin Technology Ltd v Jiang Wei, where an employer that had wrongfully terminated the employee without the required notice — a repudiatory breach — was held not entitled to enforce the restrictive covenant against him. The doctrine ties enforcement of the covenant to the employer's own performance: a party that has torn up the contract cannot selectively hold the other side to one of its clauses.
An employer that terminates abruptly — without giving contractual notice or paying in lieu — risks losing the very non-compete it is relying on. Before suing to enforce a restraint, confirm the termination was itself lawful, because a repudiatory breach by the employer can release the employee from the covenant .
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2009-11-19
G.1 Hengxin Technology Ltd v Jiang WeiUnder the General Billposting principle, applied in Hengxin, an employer who wrongfully dismisses an employee (a repudiatory breach) cannot enforce the post-employment restraint, and the dismissed employee is no longer bound by the restriction-of-trade covenant.
the House of Lords had held that a manager who was wrongfully dismissed without notice was entitled to treat the dismissal as a repudiation of the contract, sue for damages for breach and he was no longer bound by the covenant on restriction of trade.
See Hengxin Technology Ltd v Jiang Wei [2009] SGHC 259.
Is garden leave treated the same as a non-compete?
No. Garden leave is a restriction during employment, backed by the employee's continuing duty of fidelity, and a court assesses it more flexibly than a post-termination restraint. A non-compete that bites after employment ends is not assessed with the same flexibility as a garden-leave provision .
In Mano Vikrant Singh v Cargill TSF Asia Pte Ltd, the Court of Appeal kept the two doctrines distinct. During the notice period the employee remains employed, still paid, and still bound by fidelity duties, so a negative covenant operating then rests on a different footing. Once employment ends, the restraint-of-trade doctrine applies in full force and the employer must satisfy the legitimate-interest and reasonableness requirements covered above.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2012-08-07
H.1 Mano Vikrant Singh v Cargill TSF Asia Pte LtdGarden leave concerns negative covenants during employment; post-termination restraints are distinct and are not assessed with the same level of flexibility as garden-leave provisions.
Post termination employment restraints are thus not assessed with the same level of flexibility as garden leave provisions.
See Mano Vikrant Singh v Cargill TSF Asia Pte Ltd [2012] SGCA 42.
Does a Singapore non-compete pause or extend if the employee breaches?
Singapore law has not addressed it. No Singapore decision holds that the restraint period tolls — pauses and then resumes — while a former employee is in breach or while litigation runs, so an automatic extension-on-breach clause is untested. What Singapore does offer instead is the springboard injunction, a separate equitable remedy that neutralises an unfair head-start rather than extending the covenant .
This is an open question, and the practical answer is that an employer should not assume the clock stops while the employee competes. The covenant runs from the agreed start point. If the concern is that a departing employee has already used confidential information to gain an unfair advantage, the targeted remedy is not a longer non-compete but a springboard injunction.
The springboard injunction, set out in Goh Seng Heng v RSP Investments Pte Ltd, restrains a competitor only for as long as needed to erase an advantage it unfairly obtained through misuse of confidential information . It is temporal and remedial, aimed at the head-start, and it is not a device for tolling or lengthening the contractual restraint period.
Do not rely on a clause that purports to extend the non-compete by the length of any breach. No Singapore authority validates tolling of the restraint period, so treat the stated duration as the maximum, and pursue a springboard injunction if the real problem is an unfair head-start from misused confidential information .
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2016-12-12
I.1 Goh Seng Heng v RSP Investments Pte LtdThe springboard injunction is a distinct equitable remedy that restrains a competitor who has gained an unfair advantage through misuse of confidential information; it targets the head-start and is not a tolling or extension of the contractual restraint period.
The facts showed that the AM group had more than made out a prima facie case that confidential information had been misused by Dr Goh and Michelle to give an unfair advantage to Quikglow.
See Goh Seng Heng v RSP Investments Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 275; [2017] 3 SLR 657.
How is a Singapore non-compete enforced?
Mainly by injunction — but only to enforce a covenant that is itself valid. The applicant must first show a serious question that the restraint is valid and enforceable, and that it has been or will be breached ; a signed non-compete does not get automatic interim enforcement merely because breach is alleged. Once validity is in view, a prohibitory injunction to restrain breach of a negative covenant is granted comparatively readily . Money damages are also available in principle, but in practice they are hard to win because the employer must prove the loss its breach caused .
The primary remedy is an interim or final prohibitory injunction stopping the former employee from competing in breach of a valid covenant. For a negative covenant, an injunction is granted comparatively readily . Where the real harm is an unfair head-start from misused confidential information, the employer can seek the springboard injunction discussed above, which lasts only as long as the unfair advantage persists .
Damages are the weaker tool. Even where an injunction issues, a claim for damages can fail for want of proof: in Tan Kok Yong, the employer recovered no damages because it could not show the link between the employee's breach and any loss it suffered .
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2024-01-11
J.1 Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck YongTo obtain an injunction enforcing a restraint of trade clause, the applicant must first show that the clause is valid and enforceable — that it protects a legitimate interest and is reasonable in the interests of the parties and the public — before the court considers breach.
In the context of a restraint of trade clause, the applicant must first show that the restraint of trade clause is valid and enforceable, in that it protects a legitimate interest of the applicant and in addition is reasonable in the interests of the parties and the public.
See Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong [2024] SGHC 29.
Case law · 2017-07-05
J.2 RGA Holdings International Inc v Loh Choon Phing RobinWhere a defendant is about to breach, or has breached, a negative covenant, an interim prohibitory injunction will readily be granted to restrain a prospective or further breach.
When a defendant is about to breach, or has already breached, a negative covenant in a contract, an interim prohibitory injunction will readily be granted to restrain a prospective breach or a further breach, as the case may be.
See RGA Holdings International Inc v Loh Choon Phing Robin [2017] SGCA 55.
Case law · 2016-12-12
J.4 Goh Seng Heng v RSP Investments Pte LtdThe springboard injunction lasts only while the unfairly obtained advantage is still being enjoyed; it neutralises a head-start rather than extending the covenant.
There was also no doubt that Quikglow still enjoyed the unfair advantage which it had obtained as a result of these wrongs.
See Goh Seng Heng v RSP Investments Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 275; [2017] 3 SLR 657.
Case law · 2018-04-10
J.3 Tan Kok Yong Steve v Itochu Singapore Pte LtdA damages claim for breach of a non-compete failed because the employer could not prove the nexus between the breach and any loss it suffered.
The Defendant has failed to produce any evidence to show the nexus between the Plaintiff's breach of the Non-Competition Undertaking and the loss, if any, suffered by the Defendant.
See Tan Kok Yong Steve v Itochu Singapore Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 85.
Are new MOM guidelines on non-competes coming?
They are being discussed, but none is in force yet. In its March 2026 Committee of Supply statement, the Ministry of Manpower confirmed it was still discussing with its tripartite partners how and when restraint-of-trade clauses should be used, and that any guidelines will be based on principles the courts have already articulated . The Ministry first signalled this in January 2025 , and as of June 2026 no guideline has been published. Until one is issued, the common-law framework set out above governs.
The Ministry of Manpower, the National Trades Union Congress, and the Singapore National Employers Federation have signalled that tripartite guidelines are coming — likely addressing the use of restraints for lower-wage workers and in retrenchment scenarios — but the guidance has not been published and would, in any event, restate principles the courts already apply rather than override them.
Do not draft to an anticipated tripartite guideline that does not yet exist. No MOM restraint-of-trade guideline is in force as of June 2026, so the enforceability of a Singapore non-compete still turns entirely on the common-law restraint-of-trade test, and any future guideline is expected to build on those same court-articulated principles .
Sources for this answer
Agency guidance · 2026-03-03
K.1 MOM SMS Speech at Committee of Supply 2026As of March 2026, MOM remained in discussion with its tripartite partners on how and when restraint-of-trade clauses should be used, with any guidelines to be based on established principles the courts have articulated — confirming no tripartite guideline has yet been issued.
We are discussing with tripartite partners on how and when restrictive clauses in employment contracts can and should be used, and the guidelines will be based on established principles that the Courts have articulated.
See MOM, Speech by SMS for Manpower at the Committee of Supply 2026 (3 Mar 2026).
Agency guidance · 2025-01-07
K.2 MOM Written Answer to PQ on Tripartite Guidelines on Restraint of Trade ClausesAs of the Ministry's written answer, MOM was still discussing with its tripartite partners how and when restraint-of-trade clauses should be used, based on established principles the courts have articulated — i.e. no tripartite guideline has been issued.
The Ministry of Manpower is discussing with its tripartite partners – the National Trades Union Congress and the Singapore National Employers Federation – on how and when restrictive clauses in employment contracts can and should be used, based on established principles that the Courts have articulated.
See MOM, Written Answer to PQ on Tripartite Guidelines on Restraint of Trade Clauses in Employment Contracts (7 Jan 2025).