IN BRIEF
A recent decision in the Federal Court suggests that there are
some circumstances in which a restraint of 24 months may be
enforced.
INTRODUCTION
Employers commonly include restraint of trade clauses in
contracts of employment to seek to protect themselves from their
employees poaching their clients or staff, or for working for a
competitor.
At common law, restraints are contrary to public policy and are
therefore prima facie void, unless they can be shown to be
reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the
person seeking to enforce them.
The enforcement of restraints is problematic given the fact that
decisions in this area are heavily influenced by the unique
circumstances of each case. The outcome of a case may depend upon a
court's perception of the threat to the business posed by the
former employee and whether the restraints in question were
confined to what was reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate
business
