{
  "type": "practice-guide",
  "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au",
  "links": [
    {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au.json",
      "type": "application/json"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au",
      "type": "text/html"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/markdown",
      "type": "text/markdown"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/json",
      "type": "application/json"
    }
  ],
  "data": {
    "topic": "non-compete",
    "state": "au",
    "frontmatter": {
      "title": "Non-Competes in Australia",
      "description": "Australia treats post-employment non-competes under the common-law restraint-of-trade doctrine — presumptively void and enforceable only so far as reasonable to protect a legitimate business interest. Enforceability turns on the governing State or Territory, and NSW's Restraints of Trade Act 1976 lets a court read a restraint down.",
      "state": "Australia",
      "country_code": "AU",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-06-16",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0",
      "authors": [
        "steven-obiajulu"
      ],
      "summary": {
        "enforceability": "reasonable",
        "bottomLine": "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.",
        "keyLaw": "Lindner v Murdock's Garage [1950] HCA 48; Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW)",
        "exceptions": "Sale-of-business judged more leniently; NSW statutory read-down; proposed federal ban (not yet law)",
        "courtNarrowing": "trimOnly",
        "appliesToContractors": "yes",
        "extendedForBreach": "Not addressed",
        "maxLength": "No statutory limit",
        "noticeRequirement": "None",
        "saleOfBusiness": "Sale covenants judged less strictly than employee restraints",
        "customerNonSolicit": "Reasonableness test applies to narrower non-solicits",
        "employeeNonSolicit": "Workforce risk can support non-solicit"
      },
      "about": [
        "Australia non-compete enforceability",
        "Australian restraint of trade doctrine",
        "Lindner v Murdock's Garage",
        "Restraints of Trade Act 1976 NSW",
        "Woolworths v Olson read down",
        "cascading restraint clause Australia",
        "Australia non-compete ban 2026",
        "blue pencil severance Australia",
        "legitimate business interest Australia restraint",
        "NSW restraint read down",
        "Just Group v Peck restraint",
        "Emeco embedded definition restraint",
        "Steadfast ICT Security v Peak"
      ],
      "eyebrow": "Australia Law Practice Guide"
    },
    "questions": [
      {
        "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability",
        "label": "Are non-competes enforceable?",
        "heading": "Are non-competes enforceable in Australia?",
        "answerText": "Only if the employer can justify them. A post-employment non-compete is treated as a restraint of trade, which Australian courts presume is invalid unless the employer shows the restraint is reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest and is reasonable in reference to the interests of the parties and the public. The validity of the restraint is assessed at the time the contract is made, not with hindsight.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "lindner-prima-facie-void",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Lindner v Murdock's Garage",
            "citation": "Lindner v Murdock's Garage [1950] HCA 48; (1950) 83 CLR 628 (per Kitto J).",
            "url": "https://www.hcourt.gov.au/sites/default/files/eresources/1950/HCA/48.pdf",
            "proposition": "Lindner v Murdock's Garage supports the rule that all restraints of trade are presumptively invalid and may be upheld only if the party enforcing them shows they are reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate interest and not contrary to the public interest.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Any contractual restraint of trade is prima facie unlawful and invalid.",
            "date": "1950-09-29",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-lindner-prima-facie-void"
          },
          {
            "id": "olson-justifiable-reasonable",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Woolworths Ltd v Olson",
            "citation": "Woolworths Ltd v Olson [2004] NSWCA 372.",
            "url": "https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/549fb2db3004262463b8633d",
            "proposition": "A restraint of trade is justifiable only if it is reasonable in reference to the interests of the parties and the public; otherwise it is contrary to public policy and invalid.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A restraint of trade is justifiable only if the restriction is reasonable in reference to the interests of the parties and of the public",
            "date": "2004-10-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-olson-justifiable-reasonable"
          },
          {
            "id": "olson-stricter-employment",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Woolworths Ltd v Olson",
            "citation": "Woolworths Ltd v Olson [2004] NSWCA 372.",
            "url": "https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/549fb2db3004262463b8633d",
            "proposition": "Courts take a stricter and less favourable view of restraint covenants between employer and employee than of similar covenants in commercial agreements.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The courts in general take a stricter and less favourable view of covenants in restraint of trade entered into between employer and employee than of similar covenants in commercial agreements",
            "date": "2004-10-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-olson-stricter-employment"
          },
          {
            "id": "olson-tested-at-contract",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Woolworths Ltd v Olson",
            "citation": "Woolworths Ltd v Olson [2004] NSWCA 372.",
            "url": "https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/549fb2db3004262463b8633d",
            "proposition": "The validity and reasonableness of a restraint are tested at the time of entering the contract, by reference to what the clause entitled or required the parties to do.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The validity of the restraint is to be tested at the time of entering into the contract",
            "date": "2004-10-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-olson-tested-at-contract"
          },
          {
            "id": "just-presumed-void",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Just Group Ltd v Peck",
            "citation": "Just Group Ltd v Peck [2016] VSCA 334 (the Court).",
            "url": "https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2016/334.html",
            "proposition": "Just Group Ltd v Peck supports the rule that a contractual restraint of trade is presumed void as contrary to public policy unless special circumstances rebut the presumption.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A term in a contract, which is a restraint of trade ('a restraint clause'), is presumed to be void as contrary to public policy.",
            "date": "2016-12-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-just-presumed-void"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "legitimate-interest",
        "label": "What must an employer prove?",
        "heading": "What must an employer prove?",
        "answerText": "The employer must prove a legitimate business interest, not just a wish to avoid competition. Recognised interests include customer or trade connection, goodwill, confidential information, trade secrets, and in some cases workforce stability. Mere competition by a former worker is not enough.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "lindner-not-competition-per-se",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Lindner v Murdock's Garage",
            "citation": "Lindner v Murdock's Garage [1950] HCA 48; (1950) 83 CLR 628 (per McTiernan J).",
            "url": "https://www.hcourt.gov.au/sites/default/files/eresources/1950/HCA/48.pdf",
            "proposition": "An employer has no protectable interest in freedom from competition by a former employee as such and must be prepared to face that competition; only a recognised interest such as trade connection or confidential information can support a restraint.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employer must be prepared to face the competition of a former employee if it comes.",
            "date": "1950-09-29",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-lindner-not-competition-per-se"
          },
          {
            "id": "lindner-trade-connection",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Lindner v Murdock's Garage",
            "citation": "Lindner v Murdock's Garage [1950] HCA 48; (1950) 83 CLR 628 (per Kitto J).",
            "url": "https://www.hcourt.gov.au/sites/default/files/eresources/1950/HCA/48.pdf",
            "proposition": "The protectable interest is the employer's business connection with its customers — the objective knowledge of customers an employee acquires — not the technical skill and general knowledge the employee is free to take away.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The knowledge which, because its use may deprive the employer of the business connection which he is entitled to preserve as his own, he may require his employee to abstain from using, is objective knowledge of customers, their peculiarities, their credit and so forth",
            "date": "1950-09-29",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-lindner-trade-connection"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "reasonableness",
        "label": "How long and how wide can it be?",
        "heading": "How long and how wide can it be?",
        "answerText": "There is no Australian statutory maximum. Reasonableness is fact-specific and turns on the activity restrained, the geographic area, the period, the worker's role, the employer's business footprint, and the interest being protected. A restraint is reasonable only so far as it is necessary to protect that interest while preserving the worker's fullest liberty of action consistent with that protection, and the question is tested as at contract formation.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "bendtech-reasonableness-test",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Bend-Tech Group (A Firm) v Beek",
            "citation": "Bend-Tech Group (A Firm) v Beek [2015] WASC 491 (Pritchard J).",
            "url": "https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/wa/WASC/2015/491.html",
            "proposition": "A restraint is reasonable only if it is necessary for the adequate protection of the employer and preserves the fullest liberty of action for the employee consistent with that protection.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A restraint will be reasonable in relation to the restraining party if it is necessary for the adequate protection of that party and reasonable in relation to the party restrained if it preserves the fullest liberty of action consistent with that protection.",
            "date": "2016-04-11",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-bendtech-reasonableness-test"
          },
          {
            "id": "olson-tested-at-contract-reasonableness",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Woolworths Ltd v Olson",
            "citation": "Woolworths Ltd v Olson [2004] NSWCA 372.",
            "url": "https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/549fb2db3004262463b8633d",
            "proposition": "The validity and reasonableness of a restraint are tested at the time of entering the contract, by reference to what the clause entitled or required the parties to do.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The validity of the restraint is to be tested at the time of entering into the contract",
            "date": "2004-10-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-olson-tested-at-contract-reasonableness"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "court-narrowing",
        "label": "Can a court narrow an overbroad clause?",
        "heading": "Can a court narrow an overbroad clause?",
        "answerText": "Generally, only by blue-pencil severance. Outside NSW's statutory read-down regime, a court may delete severable words if the remaining covenant still works, but it will not read an unduly wide clause down, add words, or rewrite the bargain to preserve validity.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "just-no-readdown",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Just Group Ltd v Peck",
            "citation": "Just Group Ltd v Peck [2016] VSCA 334 (the Court).",
            "url": "https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2016/334.html",
            "proposition": "A court has no power to read an unduly wide restraint down to preserve its validity; the common-law tool is excision of severable words, not narrowing the clause.",
            "verbatimQuote": "However, it is not permissible for a court to read down an unduly wide clause in order to preserve its validity.",
            "date": "2016-12-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-just-no-readdown"
          },
          {
            "id": "just-rewrite",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Just Group Ltd v Peck",
            "citation": "Just Group Ltd v Peck [2016] VSCA 334 (the Court).",
            "url": "https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2016/334.html",
            "proposition": "Reading an overbroad restraint down in the way the employer proposed would impermissibly rewrite the clause to preserve its validity rather than give effect to its meaning.",
            "verbatimQuote": "to read down the first limb, in the manner suggested, would be to, impermissibly, rewrite the restraint clause in order to preserve its validity",
            "date": "2016-12-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-just-rewrite"
          },
          {
            "id": "just-no-new-agreement",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Just Group Ltd v Peck",
            "citation": "Just Group Ltd v Peck [2016] VSCA 334 (the Court).",
            "url": "https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2016/334.html",
            "proposition": "A court will not sever an overbroad restraint where doing so would amount to making a new agreement for the parties.",
            "verbatimQuote": "It is not for the Court to make a new agreement for the parties.",
            "date": "2016-12-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-just-no-new-agreement"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "nsw-read-down",
        "label": "Does any State let a court read a restraint down?",
        "heading": "Does any State let a court read a restraint down?",
        "answerText": "Yes. NSW is the important exception. Section 4 of the Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) makes a restraint valid to the extent it is not against public policy, whether or not it is expressed in severable terms. That lets a NSW court enforce a restraint to a reasonable extent and ignore the excess.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "rota-s4-1",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) s 4(1)",
            "citation": "Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) s 4(1).",
            "url": "https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-1976-067",
            "proposition": "Section 4(1) provides that a restraint of trade is valid to the extent it is not against public policy, whether or not the clause is drafted in severable terms — the statutory basis for enforcing an overbroad clause to a reasonable extent.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A restraint of trade is valid to the extent to which it is not against public policy, whether it is in severable terms or not.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-rota-s4-1"
          },
          {
            "id": "olson-s4-ignore-excess",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Woolworths Ltd v Olson",
            "citation": "Woolworths Ltd v Olson [2004] NSWCA 372.",
            "url": "https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/549fb2db3004262463b8633d",
            "proposition": "Section 4(1) lets the court disregard that a restraint goes beyond what is reasonable, provided the restraint can be enforced to an extent that is reasonable.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Section 4(1) allows the court to ignore the fact that the restraint goes beyond what is reasonable, provided the restraint can be enforced to an extent that is reasonable.",
            "date": "2004-10-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-olson-s4-ignore-excess"
          },
          {
            "id": "olson-no-remake",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Woolworths Ltd v Olson",
            "citation": "Woolworths Ltd v Olson [2004] NSWCA 372.",
            "url": "https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/549fb2db3004262463b8633d",
            "proposition": "The s 4(1) power does not extend to rewriting the covenant; the court enforces the existing clause to a reasonable extent rather than redrafting it.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The court may not rewrite the covenant while exercising the power under s4(1).",
            "date": "2004-10-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-olson-no-remake"
          },
          {
            "id": "olson-amputation",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Woolworths Ltd v Olson",
            "citation": "Woolworths Ltd v Olson [2004] NSWCA 372, quoting ICT Pty Ltd v Sea Containers Ltd (1995) 39 NSWLR 640.",
            "url": "https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/549fb2db3004262463b8633d",
            "proposition": "A restraint validated under s 4 must fall wholly within the contractual provision; the court may cut the clause back but may not reconstruct it into a different bargain.",
            "verbatimQuote": "a restraint validated by the section must fall wholly within the scope of the contractual provision. Amputation is directed but reconstruction is not.",
            "date": "2004-10-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-olson-amputation"
          },
          {
            "id": "rota-s4-3",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) s 4(3)",
            "citation": "Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) s 4(3).",
            "url": "https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-1976-067",
            "proposition": "On application by a person subject to the restraint, where the restraint is against public policy partly because of a manifest failure to attempt to make it a reasonable restraint, the Supreme Court may order it to be altogether invalid or valid only to a lesser extent, notwithstanding s 4(1).",
            "verbatimQuote": "a manifest failure by a person who created or joined in creating the restraint to attempt to make the restraint a reasonable restraint",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-rota-s4-3"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "cascading-clauses",
        "label": "How do cascading clauses work?",
        "heading": "How do cascading clauses work?",
        "answerText": "Cascading or ladder clauses list multiple restraints, usually by stepping down period, area, activity, or customer group, so that each narrower rung can stand if a wider rung fails. They can work where each rung is a separate and severable covenant. They can also fail where an overbroad definition is embedded in every rung and cannot be severed.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "hanna-nine-restraints",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Hanna v OAMPS Insurance Brokers Ltd",
            "citation": "Hanna v OAMPS Insurance Brokers Ltd [2010] NSWCA 267.",
            "url": "https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/549ff3313004262463c5979a",
            "proposition": "A cascading restraint deed comprising nine separate restraints, from the widest (15 months across Australia) to the narrowest (12 months in the Sydney metropolitan area), was upheld as a set of binding independent covenants.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Thus there were nine restraints, from the widest (15 months in Australia) to the narrowest (12 months, in Mr Hanna's case, in the metropolitan area of Sydney).",
            "date": "2010-11-12",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-hanna-nine-restraints"
          },
          {
            "id": "hanna-no-mechanism",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Hanna v OAMPS Insurance Brokers Ltd",
            "citation": "Hanna v OAMPS Insurance Brokers Ltd [2010] NSWCA 267.",
            "url": "https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/549ff3313004262463c5979a",
            "proposition": "Where each rung of a cascading clause is a separate binding covenant capable of compliance without breaching any other, no mechanism or hierarchy of order of operation is required and the clause is not uncertain.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Neither their operation nor any principle of law concerned with certainty of contract requires a mechanism or hierarchy of order of operation.",
            "date": "2010-11-12",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-hanna-no-mechanism"
          },
          {
            "id": "hanna-why-cascading",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Hanna v OAMPS Insurance Brokers Ltd",
            "citation": "Hanna v OAMPS Insurance Brokers Ltd [2010] NSWCA 267.",
            "url": "https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/549ff3313004262463c5979a",
            "proposition": "Because of the common-law severance and blue-pencil rules, it is understandable why commercial parties draft multiple severable restraint clauses.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Given the common law rules and, in particular, those concerning severance and the so-called \"blue-pencil\" test, it is understandable why commercial parties seek to employ multiple severable clauses.",
            "date": "2010-11-12",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-hanna-why-cascading"
          },
          {
            "id": "emeco-client-definition",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Emeco International Pty Ltd v O'Shea [No 2]",
            "citation": "Emeco International Pty Ltd v O'Shea [No 2] [2012] WASC 348 (Edelman J).",
            "url": "https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/wa/WASC/2012/348.html",
            "proposition": "A single overbroad defined term incorporated into several restraints cannot be internally severed to save them.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The definition of 'Client' cannot be internally severed in this case.",
            "date": "2012-10-17",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-emeco-client-definition"
          },
          {
            "id": "emeco-rewrite-restraints",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Emeco International Pty Ltd v O'Shea [No 2]",
            "citation": "Emeco International Pty Ltd v O'Shea [No 2] [2012] WASC 348 (Edelman J).",
            "url": "https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/wa/WASC/2012/348.html",
            "proposition": "Blue-pencilling part of a shared definition would amount to rewriting each restraint that incorporates the definition, which the court will not do.",
            "verbatimQuote": "To 'blue pencil' part of the definition of Client would be to rewrite each of those restraints.",
            "date": "2012-10-17",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-emeco-rewrite-restraints"
          },
          {
            "id": "steadfast-no-read-down",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Steadfast ICT Security Pty Ltd v Peak",
            "citation": "Steadfast ICT Security Pty Ltd v Peak [2021] ACTSC 199 (Mossop J), citing Emeco International Pty Ltd v O'Shea [No 2] [2012] WASC 348; 225 IR 423.",
            "url": "https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/act/ACTSC/2021/199.html",
            "proposition": "Where an overbroad definition is embedded within the operative restraint clauses, no question of severance can arise because the clauses cannot be read down or severed.",
            "verbatimQuote": "No question of severance can arise in those circumstances because it is not possible to read down or sever the clauses which have embedded within them that definition: Emeco International Pty Ltd v O'Shea [No 2] [2012] WASC 348 ; 225 IR 423.",
            "date": "2021-08-30",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-steadfast-no-read-down"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "which-jurisdiction",
        "label": "Which State or Territory applies?",
        "heading": "Which State or Territory's law applies?",
        "answerText": "Start with the contract's governing-law clause and the forum where enforcement is sought. The national common-law doctrine is shared, but enforceability turns on the governing State or Territory because NSW has a statutory read-down power and the other jurisdictions generally apply common-law severance only.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "rota-s4-1-jurisdiction",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) s 4(1)",
            "citation": "Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) s 4(1).",
            "url": "https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-1976-067",
            "proposition": "New South Wales is the outlier: by statute a restraint of trade is valid to the extent it is not against public policy, whether or not it is in severable terms — a read-down power the other States and Territories lack.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A restraint of trade is valid to the extent to which it is not against public policy, whether it is in severable terms or not.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-rota-s4-1-jurisdiction"
          },
          {
            "id": "just-no-readdown-jurisdiction",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Just Group Ltd v Peck",
            "citation": "Just Group Ltd v Peck [2016] VSCA 334 (the Court).",
            "url": "https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2016/334.html",
            "proposition": "Outside the NSW statutory regime the common law applies: a court may not read an unduly wide restraint down to preserve its validity, so the governing jurisdiction can be decisive.",
            "verbatimQuote": "However, it is not permissible for a court to read down an unduly wide clause in order to preserve its validity.",
            "date": "2016-12-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-just-no-readdown-jurisdiction"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "federal-reform",
        "label": "Is a federal non-compete ban coming?",
        "heading": "Is a federal ban on non-competes coming to Australia?",
        "answerText": "A ban has been proposed but is not yet law. As of June 2026, no Commonwealth statute bans employee non-competes, so the common-law restraint-of-trade framework still governs nationally, with NSW's Restraints of Trade Act operating where NSW law applies.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "lindner-prima-facie-void-reform",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Lindner v Murdock's Garage",
            "citation": "Lindner v Murdock's Garage [1950] HCA 48; (1950) 83 CLR 628 (per Kitto J).",
            "url": "https://www.hcourt.gov.au/sites/default/files/eresources/1950/HCA/48.pdf",
            "proposition": "Until any federal ban is enacted, the common-law restraint-of-trade doctrine — under which a restraint is prima facie invalid unless shown reasonable — continues to govern the enforceability of non-competes across Australia.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Any contractual restraint of trade is prima facie unlawful and invalid.",
            "date": "1950-09-29",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-lindner-prima-facie-void-reform"
          },
          {
            "id": "rota-s4-1-reform",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) s 4(1)",
            "citation": "Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) s 4(1).",
            "url": "https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-1976-067",
            "proposition": "Until any federal ban is enacted, s 4(1) of the Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) and the common-law reasonableness doctrine continue to govern the enforceability of non-competes where New South Wales law applies.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A restraint of trade is valid to the extent to which it is not against public policy, whether it is in severable terms or not.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au#src-rota-s4-1-reform"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}