{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "non-compete", "state": "queensland", "frontmatter": { "title": "Non-Compete Enforceability in Queensland", "description": "In Queensland a post-employment non-compete is presumptively void as a restraint of trade and binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable; Queensland has no statutory read-down power, so courts apply the common-law blue-pencil rule only — they can delete severable words but cannot rewrite an overbroad clause, and a clause that severance cannot save fails entirely.", "state": "Queensland, Australia", "country_code": "AU", "lastReviewed": "2026-06-10", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "enforceability": "reasonable", "bottomLine": "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.", "keyLaw": "Common-law restraint of trade (no equivalent of the NSW Restraints of Trade Act 1976)", "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.", "courtNarrowing": "trimOnly", "appliesToContractors": "yes", "extendedForBreach": "Untested; Australian courts treat rolling or indefinite restraints with suspicion and generally prefer damages over extending an injunction.", "maxLength": "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).", "noticeRequirement": "None", "saleOfBusiness": "Sale covenants judged less strictly than employee restraints", "customerNonSolicit": "Restraint-of-trade reasonableness; customer connection is a protectable interest" }, "about": [ "Queensland non-compete agreements", "Queensland restraint of trade clauses", "Queensland blue-pencil severance restraint", "cascading restraint clause Queensland", "Queensland no statutory read-down restraint of trade", "Auto Parts Group v Cooper cascading restraint", "Reims v City Fertility restraint of trade", "Lindner v Murdock's Garage reasonableness", "Queensland garden leave non-compete", "Australia proposed non-compete ban" ], "eyebrow": "Queensland · Australia Law Practice Guide" }, "questions": [ { "slug": "enforceability", "label": "Are non-competes enforceable?", "heading": "Are employee non-competes enforceable in Queensland?", "answerText": "Only so far as they are reasonable. A post-employment non-compete is treated as a restraint of trade, which the courts presume is void as contrary to public policy unless the employer shows it goes no further than is reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest. The most recent appellate statement of the rule in Queensland puts it directly: a restraint stands only if it is proven reasonable between the parties and is not unreasonable in the public interest.", "sources": [ { "id": "aeci-presumed-void", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "AECI Australia Pty Ltd v Convey", "citation": "AECI Australia Pty Ltd v Convey [2020] QSC 207 (Bradley J), quoting Just Group Ltd v Peck (2016) 344 ALR 162.", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2020/QSC20-207.pdf", "proposition": "AECI Australia Pty Ltd v Convey supports the rule that a contractual restraint of trade is presumed void as contrary to public policy unless special circumstances show it is reasonable.", "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": "2020-07-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-aeci-presumed-void" }, { "id": "reims-invalid-unless-reasonable", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Reims Investments Pty Ltd v City Fertility Sydney CBD Pty Ltd", "citation": "Reims Investments Pty Ltd v City Fertility Sydney CBD Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 243 (Doyle JA).", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2025/QCA25-243.pdf", "proposition": "The Court of Appeal confirmed that a restraint is invalid unless proven reasonable as between the parties, and is also invalid if proven unreasonable in the public interest.", "verbatimQuote": "A restraint will be invalid unless it is proven to be reasonable as between the parties or if proven to be unreasonable in the public interest.", "date": "2025-12-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-reims-invalid-unless-reasonable" }, { "id": "autoparts-onus", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper", "citation": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper [2015] QSC 155, quoting Vision Eye Institute Ltd v Kitchen [2014] QSC 260.", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QSC15-155.pdf", "proposition": "The party seeking to enforce a restraint bears the onus of proving it is reasonable as between the parties.", "verbatimQuote": "The party who seeks to enforce the restraint has the onus of proving that the restraint is reasonable as between the parties.", "date": "2015-06-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-autoparts-onus" }, { "id": "aeci-competition-per-se", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "AECI Australia Pty Ltd v Convey", "citation": "AECI Australia Pty Ltd v Convey [2020] QSC 207 (Bradley J), quoting Just Group Ltd v Peck (2016) 344 ALR 162.", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2020/QSC20-207.pdf", "proposition": "A purchaser of a business may protect itself from competition by the vendor, but an employer may not protect itself from competition per se by an employee, so employment covenants are judged more strictly.", "verbatimQuote": "a purchaser of a business is entitled to protect itself from competition by the vendor; but an employer is not entitled to protect itself from competition per se by an employee.", "date": "2020-07-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-aeci-competition-per-se" } ] }, { "slug": "court-narrowing", "label": "Can a court narrow an overbroad clause?", "heading": "Can a Queensland court narrow an overbroad non-compete?", "answerText": "Only in a limited way, and far less generously than many employers assume. Queensland has no statute that lets a court read an overbroad restraint down to a reasonable level. A court applies the common-law blue-pencil rule only: it can delete grammatically severable words if what remains is reasonable and the contract still makes sense, but it cannot read down, add to, or rewrite the clause. If severance cannot save the clause, the whole restraint fails.", "sources": [ { "id": "autoparts-no-rewrite", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper", "citation": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper [2015] QSC 155, quoting Vision Eye Institute Ltd v Kitchen [2014] QSC 260.", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QSC15-155.pdf", "proposition": "Courts will not rewrite the parties' contract, but within limits a contract may contain cascading restraint of trade clauses that build in narrower alternative covenants.", "verbatimQuote": "Courts will not rewrite the parties' contract for them. However, within certain limits which are not alleged to have been exceeded in this case, a contract may contain cascading restraint of trade clauses.", "date": "2015-06-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-autoparts-no-rewrite" }, { "id": "autoparts-severance", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper", "citation": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper [2015] QSC 155, quoting Vision Eye Institute Ltd v Kitchen [2014] QSC 260.", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QSC15-155.pdf", "proposition": "A restrictive covenant provision may be severed only if it is divisible and can be deleted without materially modifying what remains, and the parties may expressly make each obligation independent and severable.", "verbatimQuote": "Provisions in a restrictive covenant may be severed if they are capable of being regarded as divisible and deleted without materially modifying the effect of what remains. In addition, the parties may expressly provide that each obligation has independent operation and is severable.", "date": "2015-06-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-autoparts-severance" }, { "id": "aeci-no-read-down", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "AECI Australia Pty Ltd v Convey", "citation": "AECI Australia Pty Ltd v Convey [2020] QSC 207 (Bradley J), quoting Just Group Ltd v Peck (2016) 344 ALR 162.", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2020/QSC20-207.pdf", "proposition": "A court may not construe a restraint by first deciding what degree of restriction would be justified and then reading an unduly wide clause down to preserve its validity.", "verbatimQuote": "it is not permissible for the Court to approach the construction of a restraint clause by first determining what degree of restriction would be justified; and then reading down an unduly wide clause in order to preserve its validity.", "date": "2020-07-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-aeci-no-read-down" }, { "id": "maglis-cannot-be-severed", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Perpetual Limited v Maglis", "citation": "Perpetual Limited v Maglis [2025] QSC 71 (Bowskill CJ).", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2025/QSC25-071.pdf", "proposition": "At an interlocutory stage, where an overbroad definition drove the restraint, the Court considered that the argument for validity faced real challenges because the offending words were not, on that view, capable of being severed, read down, or read with additional words.", "verbatimQuote": "I consider the argument for validity of the restraint clause has real challenges, having regard to the extremely broad definition of \"Client\", which I do not accept is capable of being severed, read down, or read with additional words, as submitted by the applicants.", "date": "2025-04-07", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-maglis-cannot-be-severed" } ] }, { "slug": "cascading-clauses", "label": "Are cascading or ladder clauses valid?", "heading": "Are cascading or ladder restraint clauses valid in Queensland?", "answerText": "Yes, within limits, and they are essential drafting in Queensland precisely because a court cannot read an overbroad clause down. A cascading clause sets out a menu of progressively narrower combinations of period and area, each expressed as a separate, severable restraint, so that if the widest is unreasonable a narrower rung can still be enforced on its own. Queensland courts accept that, within certain limits, a contract may contain cascading restraint of trade clauses.", "sources": [ { "id": "autoparts-cascading", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper", "citation": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper [2015] QSC 155, quoting Vision Eye Institute Ltd v Kitchen [2014] QSC 260.", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QSC15-155.pdf", "proposition": "Within certain limits a contract may contain cascading restraint of trade clauses, and a court will not rewrite the contract to achieve the same effect.", "verbatimQuote": "Courts will not rewrite the parties' contract for them. However, within certain limits which are not alleged to have been exceeded in this case, a contract may contain cascading restraint of trade clauses.", "date": "2015-06-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-autoparts-cascading" }, { "id": "autoparts-severance-cascade", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper", "citation": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper [2015] QSC 155, quoting Vision Eye Institute Ltd v Kitchen [2014] QSC 260.", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QSC15-155.pdf", "proposition": "Each rung of a cascade works only if it is divisible and can be deleted without materially modifying what remains; the parties may expressly make each obligation independent and severable.", "verbatimQuote": "Provisions in a restrictive covenant may be severed if they are capable of being regarded as divisible and deleted without materially modifying the effect of what remains. In addition, the parties may expressly provide that each obligation has independent operation and is severable.", "date": "2015-06-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-autoparts-severance-cascade" }, { "id": "maglis-sever-definition", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Perpetual Limited v Maglis", "citation": "Perpetual Limited v Maglis [2025] QSC 71 (Bowskill CJ).", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2025/QSC25-071.pdf", "proposition": "At an interlocutory stage, where the breadth came from a single defined term rather than a separable covenant, the Court considered the clause was not, on that view, capable of being severed, read down, or read with additional words.", "verbatimQuote": "I consider the argument for validity of the restraint clause has real challenges, having regard to the extremely broad definition of \"Client\", which I do not accept is capable of being severed, read down, or read with additional words, as submitted by the applicants.", "date": "2025-04-07", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-maglis-sever-definition" } ] }, { "slug": "legitimate-interest", "label": "What interest must an employer protect?", "heading": "What legitimate interest must an employer show to enforce a Queensland non-compete?", "answerText": "A protectable business interest — not a mere wish to avoid competition. An employer cannot restrain a former employee simply because a rival might benefit; an employer must be prepared to face the competition of a former employee if it comes. The recognised interests are the employer's customer connection and goodwill and its confidential information and trade secrets.", "sources": [ { "id": "lindner-face-competition", "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 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/queensland#src-lindner-face-competition" }, { "id": "aeci-confidential-restraint", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "AECI Australia Pty Ltd v Convey", "citation": "AECI Australia Pty Ltd v Convey [2020] QSC 207 (Bradley J), quoting Just Group Ltd v Peck (2016) 344 ALR 162.", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2020/QSC20-207.pdf", "proposition": "To protect confidential information a restraint need not be limited to a non-disclosure covenant; it may restrain the employee from joining a competitive business that could use the information.", "verbatimQuote": "It may restrain the employee from being involved with a competitive business that could use the confidential information.", "date": "2020-07-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-aeci-confidential-restraint" }, { "id": "gbar-not-slave", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "GBAR (Australia) Pty Ltd v Brown", "citation": "GBAR (Australia) Pty Ltd v Brown [2020] QSC 14 (Bradley J).", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2020/QSC20-014.pdf", "proposition": "An employee's skill and experience are the employee's own property; a restraint cannot be used to sterilise the worker's ability to earn a living, because the worker was an employee, not a slave.", "verbatimQuote": "He was GBAR's employee, not their slave.", "date": "2020-02-14", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-gbar-not-slave" } ] }, { "slug": "reasonableness-factors", "label": "How long and how wide can it be?", "heading": "How long and how wide can a Queensland non-compete be?", "answerText": "There is no statutory limit; reasonableness is decided case by case on the activity restrained, the geographic area, the duration, and the employee's seniority and actual customer influence. Reasonableness is tested as at the date the contract was made, not by hindsight. A geographic area wider than the employer's business reaches, or a period longer than is needed to protect the interest, is likely to be unreasonable.", "sources": [ { "id": "autoparts-tested-at-contract", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper", "citation": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper [2015] QSC 155, quoting Vision Eye Institute Ltd v Kitchen [2014] QSC 260.", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QSC15-155.pdf", "proposition": "The reasonableness of a restraint is determined as at the date of entry into the agreement, not with hindsight.", "verbatimQuote": "The reasonableness of the restraint is determined at the date of entry into the agreement.", "date": "2015-06-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-autoparts-tested-at-contract" }, { "id": "lindner-area-too-wide", "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": "A restraint whose geographic area is wider than reasonably necessary to protect the employer's business is unreasonable and void; here the area covered was held unreasonably wide.", "verbatimQuote": "I think it must be held that the area was unreasonably wide.", "date": "1950-09-29", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-lindner-area-too-wide" }, { "id": "autoparts-die-away", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper", "citation": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper [2015] QSC 155, quoting Vision Eye Institute Ltd v Kitchen [2014] QSC 260.", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QSC15-155.pdf", "proposition": "For a customer-connection interest, one test of reasonable duration is how long it will take the connection between the ex-employee and the customer to die away.", "verbatimQuote": "One test is to ask how long it will take the connection between the ex-employee and the customer to die away.", "date": "2015-06-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-autoparts-die-away" }, { "id": "autoparts-acknowledgement-not-binding", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper", "citation": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper [2015] QSC 155, quoting Vision Eye Institute Ltd v Kitchen [2014] QSC 260.", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QSC15-155.pdf", "proposition": "A contractual acknowledgement that a restraint is reasonable is some evidence of reasonableness but does not bind the court.", "verbatimQuote": "However, a declaration by a party that a restraint is reasonable does not bind the court.", "date": "2015-06-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-autoparts-acknowledgement-not-binding" } ] }, { "slug": "garden-leave", "label": "Do paid restraints and garden leave help?", "heading": "Do paid restraints, garden leave, and fresh consideration help in Queensland?", "answerText": "They can strengthen an employer's position, but they do not displace the reasonableness requirement. A restraint the employee was paid to accept is more likely to be enforced, and a court gives weight to what the parties negotiated — though their own acknowledgement that a clause is reasonable does not bind the court. Garden leave, where the employee stays employed and paid through a notice period, is assessed against the same reasonableness framework rather than being automatically valid; a restraint the employee is paid to observe weighs in favour of enforcement.", "sources": [ { "id": "aeci-paid-restraint", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "AECI Australia Pty Ltd v Convey", "citation": "AECI Australia Pty Ltd v Convey [2020] QSC 207 (Bradley J).", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2020/QSC20-207.pdf", "proposition": "Where the employer had paid the employee a sum equal to one year's salary in return for the restraint, the court treated that payment as a significant factor supporting the reasonableness of the clause.", "verbatimQuote": "AECI was prepared to pay a significant sum (namely one year of the Employee's salary) for the right it seeks to vindicate", "date": "2020-07-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-aeci-paid-restraint" }, { "id": "autoparts-acknowledgement-not-binding-gl", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper", "citation": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper [2015] QSC 155, quoting Vision Eye Institute Ltd v Kitchen [2014] QSC 260.", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QSC15-155.pdf", "proposition": "A party's declaration that a restraint is reasonable is some evidence of reasonableness but does not bind the court, so paid or negotiated restraints still face the reasonableness test.", "verbatimQuote": "However, a declaration by a party that a restraint is reasonable does not bind the court.", "date": "2015-06-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-autoparts-acknowledgement-not-binding-gl" }, { "id": "autoparts-tested-at-contract-gl", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper", "citation": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper [2015] QSC 155, quoting Vision Eye Institute Ltd v Kitchen [2014] QSC 260.", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QSC15-155.pdf", "proposition": "Validity and reasonableness are determined at the date of entry into the agreement, which governs how a mid-employment restraint is assessed.", "verbatimQuote": "The reasonableness of the restraint is determined at the date of entry into the agreement.", "date": "2015-06-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-autoparts-tested-at-contract-gl" } ] }, { "slug": "employer-breach", "label": "What if the employer breached first?", "heading": "What if the employer wrongfully dismissed the employee?", "answerText": "The restraint may fall away. The employer carries the onus of proving the restraint reasonable in the first place, so an employer seeking an injunction already starts from a position where it must justify the covenant. Beyond that, the long-standing common-law principle associated with General Billposting Co Ltd v Atkinson [1909] AC 118 is that an employer who wrongfully dismisses an employee — for example by repudiating the contract through a dismissal without the notice the contract requires — generally cannot afterwards enforce a post-employment restraint against that employee. The staged Queensland authorities here do not themselves decide that point, so it is best treated as a general principle a court may apply rather than a settled Queensland rule.", "sources": [ { "id": "lindner-onus", "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": "The employer bears the onus of proving circumstances showing the restriction on the employee's freedom to work is reasonable.", "verbatimQuote": "The onus was on the plaintiff firm to prove circumstances showing that the restriction on the defendant's freedom to work was reasonable.", "date": "1950-09-29", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-lindner-onus" } ] }, { "slug": "tolling", "label": "Does the restriction pause or extend during a breach?", "heading": "Does a Queensland non-compete pause or extend if the employee breaches?", "answerText": "This is an open question, and an employer should not assume the clock stops. No settled Queensland authority holds that a restraint period tolls — pauses and then resumes — while a former employee is in breach or while litigation runs. Reasonableness is determined as at the date of the agreement, which sits uneasily with a clause that purports to lengthen the restraint automatically depending on the employee's later conduct.", "sources": [ { "id": "autoparts-tested-at-contract-tolling", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper", "citation": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper [2015] QSC 155, quoting Vision Eye Institute Ltd v Kitchen [2014] QSC 260.", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QSC15-155.pdf", "proposition": "Reasonableness is determined at the date of entry into the agreement, which is in tension with a clause that automatically extends the restraint based on the employee's later breach.", "verbatimQuote": "The reasonableness of the restraint is determined at the date of entry into the agreement.", "date": "2015-06-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-autoparts-tested-at-contract-tolling" } ] }, { "slug": "customer-non-solicitation", "label": "How are customer non-solicits treated?", "heading": "How does Queensland treat customer non-solicitation covenants?", "answerText": "A customer non-solicit is a restraint of trade in Queensland — presumptively void but binding so far as it is reasonable and necessary to protect a legitimate interest, the principal one being the employer's connection with its customers.", "sources": [ { "id": "qld-cust-principal-interest", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper", "citation": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper [2015] QSC 155 at [262].", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QSC15-155.pdf", "proposition": "The principal legitimate interest protectable by a restraint against a former employee is the employer's connection with its customers.", "verbatimQuote": "The principal interest which can be protected by a restraint against a former employee is the benefit of the former employer of the relationships with its customers.", "date": "2015-06-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-qld-cust-principal-interest" }, { "id": "qld-cust-test-necessary", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper", "citation": "Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper [2015] QSC 155 at [259].", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QSC15-155.pdf", "proposition": "A restraint binds only so far as it does not exceed what is reasonable and necessary to protect the covenantee's legitimate interest.", "verbatimQuote": "The restraint must operate to protect a legitimate interest of the covenantee. The test is whether the restrictive covenant exceeds what is reasonable and necessary for the protection of the legitimate interest.", "date": "2015-06-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-qld-cust-test-necessary" } ] }, { "slug": "contractors-and-sale", "label": "Do the rules differ for contractors and business sales?", "heading": "Do Queensland restraint rules differ for contractors and business sales?", "answerText": "Yes, in different directions. Restraints on independent contractors are assessed under the same restraint-of-trade doctrine as employee covenants — the same legitimate-interest requirement and the same no-wider-than-necessary test — so the label of the relationship matters less than the substance of the interest the restraint actually protects. Restraints given by the seller of a business, by contrast, are judged much more leniently, because a buyer is entitled to protect the goodwill it paid for.", "sources": [ { "id": "lindner-sale-distinction", "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 Latham CJ).", "url": "https://www.hcourt.gov.au/sites/default/files/eresources/1950/HCA/48.pdf", "proposition": "A distinction is drawn between a restraint in a sale-of-business agreement and a restraint in an employment agreement, with the former treated more favourably.", "verbatimQuote": "A distinction is drawn between a restraint upon trade included in an agreement for the sale of a business and a restraint included in an agreement with an employee.", "date": "1950-09-29", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-lindner-sale-distinction" }, { "id": "lindner-sale-more-easily", "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 Latham CJ).", "url": "https://www.hcourt.gov.au/sites/default/files/eresources/1950/HCA/48.pdf", "proposition": "A restraint is more easily upheld in the sale-of-business context than in the employment context.", "verbatimQuote": "The restraint is more easily upheld in the former than in the latter case.", "date": "1950-09-29", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-lindner-sale-more-easily" }, { "id": "reims-anticompetitive", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Reims Investments Pty Ltd v City Fertility Sydney CBD Pty Ltd", "citation": "Reims Investments Pty Ltd v City Fertility Sydney CBD Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 243 (Doyle JA).", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2025/QCA25-243.pdf", "proposition": "A restraint imposed to protect future income from another's activity, rather than purchased goodwill, is more readily described as merely anticompetitive and is scrutinised more closely than a sale-of-business covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "The latter is more readily described as merely anticompetitive and requires closer scrutiny.", "date": "2025-12-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-reims-anticompetitive" } ] }, { "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, and as of June 2026 the common-law restraint-of-trade framework above still governs in Queensland. According to Australian Government Treasury material and law-firm commentary, the Government announced in the 2025–26 Federal Budget that it intends to ban post-employment non-competes for workers earning under the Fair Work Act high-income threshold (reported at around AUD $183,100), with Treasury running a consultation on the design, and the reform expected to be legislated during 2026 and to take effect from 2027, operating prospectively. Those figures and dates come from that secondary material — Treasury announcements and commentary — not from any enacted statute. Until any ban is enacted, the existing common-law framework continues to govern.", "sources": [ { "id": "reims-still-governs", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Reims Investments Pty Ltd v City Fertility Sydney CBD Pty Ltd", "citation": "Reims Investments Pty Ltd v City Fertility Sydney CBD Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 243 (Doyle JA).", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2025/QCA25-243.pdf", "proposition": "Under the common-law restraint-of-trade doctrine that currently governs in Queensland, a restraint is invalid unless it is proven reasonable as between the parties and is not proven unreasonable in the public interest.", "verbatimQuote": "A restraint will be invalid unless it is proven to be reasonable as between the parties or if proven to be unreasonable in the public interest.", "date": "2025-12-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-reims-still-governs" } ] }, { "slug": "employee-non-solicitation", "label": "How are employee non-solicits treated?", "heading": "Are employee (anti-raiding) non-solicits enforceable in Queensland?", "answerText": "A covenant barring a former employee from soliciting the employer's staff is a restraint of trade: presumptively void and binding only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest. An employer cannot use it to restrain ordinary competition, but it may protect a genuine interest such as the confidential information a departing employee could exploit. No Queensland decision in our review squarely recognizes protecting a stable workforce against poaching as a distinct interest.", "sources": [ { "id": "qld-empns-lindner", "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": "Lindner v Murdock's Garage, binding High Court authority across Australia, holds that an employer must accept a former employee's competition — a restraint cannot protect against competition as such.", "verbatimQuote": "An employer must be prepared to face the competition of a former employee if it comes.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-qld-empns-lindner" }, { "id": "qld-empns-aeci-interest", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "AECI Australia Pty Ltd v Convey", "citation": "AECI Australia Pty Ltd v Convey [2020] QSC 207 (Bradley J), quoting Just Group Ltd v Peck (2016) 344 ALR 162.", "url": "https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2020/QSC20-207.pdf", "proposition": "AECI Australia v Convey states that a restraint may protect a legitimate interest such as the confidential information a former employee could use in a competitive business — the kind of interest that can support an employee non-solicit.", "verbatimQuote": "It may restrain the employee from being involved with a competitive business that could use the confidential information.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland#src-qld-empns-aeci-interest" } ] } ] } }