A side-by-side comparison of how each covered jurisdiction treats employee non-compete agreements. Use country, search, and enforceability filters to narrow the full worldwide table. This is legal research, not legal advice.
Australian non-competes are presumptively void restraints of trade and bind a former worker only so far as reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, with NSW adding a statutory read-down power.
Lindner v Murdock's Garage [1950] HCA 48; Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW)
Main exceptions
Sale-of-business judged more leniently; NSW statutory read-down; proposed federal ban (not yet law)
An Australian Capital Territory non-compete binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate business interest; there is no statutory read-down power, so an overbroad clause cannot be rewritten — in the Territory's leading case a 24-month restraint on a general manager was upheld, while a parallel restraint failed entirely because an overbroad defined term was embedded in the operative clauses and could not be severed or read down.
Common-law restraint of trade (no equivalent of the NSW Restraints of Trade Act 1976)
Main exceptions
Sale-of-business covenants are judged more leniently; a proposed federal ban would, if enacted, cover most employees earning under the Fair Work Act high-income threshold (with sale-of-business and above-threshold restraints reported to be excluded), but it is not yet law.
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
Only strikes wording
Applies to contractors?
Yes
Restriction extended during a breach?
Untested; in the Territory's leading case the restraint period had expired by trial, the injunction claim was not pressed, and the court awarded monetary relief rather than extending the restraint.
Maximum length set by law
No statutory cap; reasonableness turns on the combined effect of duration and area, and a 24-month restraint on a general manager — the longest rung of a cascading clause — was upheld in Steadfast ICT Security v Peak.
A NSW non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only to the extent it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest, but the Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) lets the Supreme Court enforce an overbroad clause to a reasonable extent instead of voiding it outright.
Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) s 4; common-law restraint of trade
Main exceptions
Sale-of-business covenants are judged more leniently; a proposed federal ban would cover most employees earning under the Fair Work Act high-income threshold but would exclude sale-of-business and above-threshold restraints.
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
Only strikes wording
Applies to contractors?
Yes
Restriction extended during a breach?
Untested; courts treat rolling or indefinite restraints with suspicion and prefer damages over extending an injunction.
Maximum length set by law
No statutory cap; periods beyond about 12 months in employment are heavily scrutinised.
A Northern Territory non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; there is no statutory read-down power, and in the leading Supreme Court employment case an eighteen-month restraint failed entirely as longer than necessary even though the court considered fifteen months at most would have been reasonable.
Common-law restraint of trade (no equivalent of the NSW Restraints of Trade Act 1976)
Main exceptions
Sale-of-business and franchise covenants are judged in their commercial context; a proposed federal ban would, if enacted, cover most employees earning under the Fair Work Act high-income threshold (with sale-of-business and above-threshold restraints reported to be excluded), but it is not yet law.
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
Only strikes wording
Applies to contractors?
Yes
Restriction extended during a breach?
Untested; Australian courts treat rolling or indefinite restraints with suspicion and generally prefer damages over extending an injunction.
Maximum length set by law
No statutory cap; reasonableness is judged case by case — an eighteen-month restraint on an insurance broker was held void as longer than necessary (fifteen months at most would have been reasonable), while a six-month client-solicitation restraint was one the court said it would have found enforceable.
A Queensland non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; there is no statutory read-down power, so a court can only strike out grammatically severable words under the blue-pencil rule and an overbroad clause that severance cannot save fails entirely.
Common-law restraint of trade (no equivalent of the NSW Restraints of Trade Act 1976)
Main exceptions
Sale-of-business covenants are judged more leniently; a proposed federal ban would, if enacted, cover most employees earning under the Fair Work Act high-income threshold (with sale-of-business and above-threshold restraints reported to be excluded), but it is not yet law.
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
Only strikes wording
Applies to contractors?
Yes
Restriction extended during a breach?
Untested; Australian courts treat rolling or indefinite restraints with suspicion and generally prefer damages over extending an injunction.
Maximum length set by law
No statutory cap; reasonableness is judged case by case, and longer periods attract closer scrutiny (a six-month restraint on senior managers was upheld in Auto Parts Group v Cooper).
A South Australian non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; there is no statutory read-down power, so a court can only strike out grammatically severable words under the blue-pencil rule and an overbroad clause that severance cannot save fails entirely.
Common-law restraint of trade (no equivalent of the NSW Restraints of Trade Act 1976)
Main exceptions
Sale-of-business covenants are judged more leniently; a proposed federal ban would, if enacted, cover most employees earning under the Fair Work Act high-income threshold (with sale-of-business and above-threshold restraints reported to be excluded), but it is not yet law.
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
Only strikes wording
Applies to contractors?
Yes
Restriction extended during a breach?
Untested; reasonableness is fixed at the date of contract, and no South Australian authority validates extending a restraint because of a breach.
Maximum length set by law
No statutory cap; reasonableness is judged case by case by reference to the time needed to break the customer connection (a 12-month restraint was upheld in International Cleaning Services v Dmytrenko).
A Tasmanian non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; there is no statutory read-down power, so a court can only sever covenants the parties themselves drafted as genuinely separate, and an overbroad clause that severance cannot save fails entirely.
Common-law restraint of trade (no equivalent of the NSW Restraints of Trade Act 1976)
Main exceptions
Sale-of-business covenants are judged more leniently; a proposed federal ban would, if enacted, cover most employees earning under the Fair Work Act high-income threshold (with sale-of-business and above-threshold restraints reported to be excluded), but it is not yet law.
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
Only strikes wording
Applies to contractors?
Yes
Restriction extended during a breach?
Untested; Australian courts treat rolling or indefinite restraints with suspicion and generally prefer damages over extending an injunction.
Maximum length set by law
No statutory cap; reasonableness is judged case by case — a one-month, 50-kilometre covenant was treated as reasonable in Bulk Frozen Foods v Excell, while a three-year restraint survived only for the purchased client connection in Neville Jeffress Advertising v Barlow (No 2).
A Victorian non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; there is no statutory read-down power, so a court can only strike out grammatically severable words under the blue-pencil rule, and a carefully drafted multi-limb restraint that severance cannot save fails entirely.
Common-law restraint of trade (no equivalent of the NSW Restraints of Trade Act 1976)
Main exceptions
Sale-of-business covenants are judged more leniently; a proposed federal ban would, if enacted, cover most employees earning under the Fair Work Act high-income threshold (with sale-of-business and above-threshold restraints reported to be excluded), but it is not yet law.
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
Only strikes wording
Applies to contractors?
Yes
Restriction extended during a breach?
Untested; Australian courts treat rolling or indefinite restraints with suspicion and generally prefer damages over extending an injunction.
Maximum length set by law
No statutory cap; reasonableness is judged case by case and tested as at the date of the contract, and longer periods and wider areas attract closer scrutiny.
A Western Australian non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; there is no statutory read-down power, so a court can only strike out genuinely distinct, severable covenants under the blue-pencil rule and an overbroad clause that severance cannot save fails entirely.
Common-law restraint of trade (no equivalent of the NSW Restraints of Trade Act 1976)
Main exceptions
Sale-of-business covenants are judged more leniently; a proposed federal ban would, if enacted, cover most employees earning under the Fair Work Act high-income threshold (with sale-of-business and above-threshold restraints reported to be excluded), but it is not yet law.
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
Only strikes wording
Applies to contractors?
Yes
Restriction extended during a breach?
Untested; reasonableness is fixed at the date of contract, and no Western Australian authority validates extending a restraint because of a breach.
Maximum length set by law
No statutory cap; reasonableness is judged case by case (a six-month competitor restraint was upheld in Emeco International Pty Ltd v O'Shea [No 2], while a 12-month statewide restraint failed even to establish a prima facie case in Bend-Tech Group v Beek).