{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "non-compete", "state": "sg", "frontmatter": { "title": "Non-Competes in Singapore", "description": "Singapore has no non-compete statute; a post-employment restraint is presumptively void as a restraint of trade and binds a former employee only if the employer proves a legitimate proprietary interest and that the clause is reasonable between the parties and in the public interest, and a court may strike out but never rewrite an overbroad clause.", "state": "Singapore", "country_code": "SG", "lastReviewed": "2026-06-03", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "enforceability": "reasonable", "bottomLine": "Singapore has no non-compete statute; a post-employment restraint is presumptively void and binds a former employee only if the employer proves a legitimate proprietary interest and shows the clause is reasonable between the parties and in the public interest.", "keyLaw": "Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David [2007] SGCA 53", "exceptions": "No statutory industry carve-outs; sale-of-business covenants are judged more leniently (CLAAS Medical Centre [2010] SGCA 3). The confidentiality over-and-above trap (Stratech [2005] SGCA 17) often defeats employment non-competes.", "courtNarrowing": "trimOnly", "appliesToContractors": "unclear", "extendedForBreach": "Not addressed", "maxLength": "No statutory limit", "noticeRequirement": "None", "incomeThreshold": "None", "saleOfBusiness": "Sale covenants judged less strictly than employment restraints (CLAAS)", "customerNonSolicit": "Presumptively void; must satisfy restraint-of-trade test", "employeeNonSolicit": "Presumptively void; must satisfy restraint-of-trade test" }, "about": [ "Singapore non-compete agreements", "Singapore restraint of trade clauses", "legitimate proprietary interest Singapore", "Man Financial v Wong Bark Chuan David", "Singapore blue pencil severance", "Singapore confidentiality non-compete", "Singapore garden leave", "Singapore springboard injunction", "MOM tripartite guidelines restraint of trade" ], "translations": [ { "language": "中文", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Bahasa Melayu", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Tamil", "status": "planned" } ], "eyebrow": "Singapore Law Practice Guide" }, "questions": [ { "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability", "label": "Are non-competes enforceable?", "heading": "Are employee non-competes enforceable in Singapore?", "answerText": "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.", "sources": [ { "id": "mf-interest-required", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David", "citation": "Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David [2007] SGCA 53; [2008] 1 SLR(R) 663.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gdviewer/s/2007_SGCA_53", "proposition": "A 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.", "verbatimQuote": "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", "date": "2007-11-29", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-mf-interest-required" }, { "id": "mf-prima-facie-void", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David", "citation": "Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David [2007] SGCA 53; [2008] 1 SLR(R) 663.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gdviewer/s/2007_SGCA_53", "proposition": "Restraints 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.", "verbatimQuote": "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.", "date": "2007-11-29", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-mf-prima-facie-void" }, { "id": "mf-parties-public", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David", "citation": "Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David [2007] SGCA 53; [2008] 1 SLR(R) 663.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gdviewer/s/2007_SGCA_53", "proposition": "A 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.", "verbatimQuote": "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.", "date": "2007-11-29", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-mf-parties-public" } ] }, { "slug": "legitimate-interest", "label": "What must an employer prove?", "heading": "What must an employer prove to enforce a non-compete?", "answerText": "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.", "sources": [ { "id": "stratech-no-competition", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Stratech Systems Ltd v Nyam Chiu Shin", "citation": "Stratech Systems Ltd v Nyam Chiu Shin (alias Yan Qiuxin) [2005] SGCA 17; [2005] 2 SLR(R) 579.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2005_SGCA_17", "proposition": "A court will never uphold a covenant taken by an employer merely to protect itself from competition by a former employee.", "verbatimQuote": "The court will never uphold a covenant taken by an employer merely to protect himself from competition by a former employee.", "date": "2005-03-28", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-stratech-no-competition" }, { "id": "mf-no-competition", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David", "citation": "Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David [2007] SGCA 53; [2008] 1 SLR(R) 663.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gdviewer/s/2007_SGCA_53", "proposition": "An employer has no legitimate interest in preventing a former employee from joining a competitor merely because the new employer is a competitor.", "verbatimQuote": "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.", "date": "2007-11-29", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-mf-no-competition" }, { "id": "mf-trade-connection", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David", "citation": "Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David [2007] SGCA 53; [2008] 1 SLR(R) 663.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gdviewer/s/2007_SGCA_53", "proposition": "Trade 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.", "verbatimQuote": "The second proprietary interest that is traditionally recognised as well as protected by the courts in the employment context is that of trade connection.", "date": "2007-11-29", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-mf-trade-connection" }, { "id": "firstcom-no-lpi", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "FirstCom Academy Pte Ltd v Oom Academy Pte Ltd", "citation": "FirstCom Academy Pte Ltd v Oom Academy Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 266.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2025_SGHC_266", "proposition": "A 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.", "verbatimQuote": "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.", "date": "2025-12-30", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-firstcom-no-lpi" } ] }, { "slug": "confidentiality-overlap", "label": "Can it protect what an NDA already covers?", "heading": "Can a non-compete protect information an NDA already covers?", "answerText": "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.", "sources": [ { "id": "shopee-over-and-above", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong", "citation": "Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong [2024] SGHC 29.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2024_SGHC_29", "proposition": "Restating 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.", "verbatimQuote": "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.", "date": "2024-01-11", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-shopee-over-and-above" }, { "id": "shopee-serious-doubts", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong", "citation": "Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong [2024] SGHC 29.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2024_SGHC_29", "proposition": "Where 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.", "verbatimQuote": "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.", "date": "2024-01-11", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-shopee-serious-doubts" }, { "id": "stratech-particularise", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Stratech Systems Ltd v Nyam Chiu Shin", "citation": "Stratech Systems Ltd v Nyam Chiu Shin (alias Yan Qiuxin) [2005] SGCA 17; [2005] 2 SLR(R) 579.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2005_SGCA_17", "proposition": "An employer must particularise the confidential information it seeks to protect rather than assert it in the abstract.", "verbatimQuote": "It follows from the foregoing that an employer must particularize the confidential information which he seeks to protect.", "date": "2005-03-28", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-stratech-particularise" }, { "id": "ms-confidentiality", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko", "citation": "MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko [2024] SGHC 94.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2024_SGHC_94", "proposition": "The 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.", "verbatimQuote": "Further, any issue of confidentiality is already addressed and protected by the Confidentiality Clause.", "date": "2024-04-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-ms-confidentiality" } ] }, { "slug": "reasonableness", "label": "How long and how wide can it be?", "heading": "How long and how wide can a Singapore non-compete be?", "answerText": "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.", "sources": [ { "id": "tky-reasonable", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Tan Kok Yong Steve v Itochu Singapore Pte Ltd", "citation": "Tan Kok Yong Steve v Itochu Singapore Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 85.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2018_SGHC_85", "proposition": "A 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.", "verbatimQuote": "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.", "date": "2018-04-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-tky-reasonable" }, { "id": "smile-indefinite", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Smile Inc Dental Surgeons Pte Ltd v Lui Andrew Stewart", "citation": "Smile Inc Dental Surgeons Pte Ltd v Lui Andrew Stewart [2012] SGCA 39; [2012] 4 SLR 308.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2012_SGCA_39", "proposition": "A restraint of trade that operates for an indefinite period is, absent the most exceptional circumstances, necessarily void and unenforceable.", "verbatimQuote": "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.", "date": "2012-07-31", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-smile-indefinite" }, { "id": "ms-cascading", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko", "citation": "MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko [2024] SGHC 94.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2024_SGHC_94", "proposition": "A 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.", "verbatimQuote": "It appears that the claimant will have multiple bites of the cherry in relation to determining the duration of the Non-Compete Clause.", "date": "2024-04-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-ms-cascading" } ] }, { "slug": "court-narrowing", "label": "Can a court narrow an overbroad clause?", "heading": "Can a Singapore court narrow an overbroad non-compete?", "answerText": "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.", "sources": [ { "id": "mf-blue-pencil", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David", "citation": "Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David [2007] SGCA 53; [2008] 1 SLR(R) 663.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gdviewer/s/2007_SGCA_53", "proposition": "Severance 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.", "verbatimQuote": "In other words, the court will not rewrite the contract for the parties.", "date": "2007-11-29", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-mf-blue-pencil" }, { "id": "ms-cascading-narrow", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko", "citation": "MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko [2024] SGHC 94.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2024_SGHC_94", "proposition": "A 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.", "verbatimQuote": "It appears that the claimant will have multiple bites of the cherry in relation to determining the duration of the Non-Compete Clause.", "date": "2024-04-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-ms-cascading-narrow" } ] }, { "slug": "sale-of-business", "label": "Is selling a business treated differently?", "heading": "Are non-competes from a business sale treated differently?", "answerText": "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.", "sources": [ { "id": "claas-liberal", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon Ching", "citation": "CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon Ching [2010] SGCA 3; [2010] 2 SLR 386.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2010_SGCA_3", "proposition": "Courts take a more liberal approach to restrictive covenants in the sale-of-business context than in the employment context.", "verbatimQuote": "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.", "date": "2010-02-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-claas-liberal" }, { "id": "claas-no-further", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon Ching", "citation": "CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon Ching [2010] SGCA 3; [2010] 2 SLR 386.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2010_SGCA_3", "proposition": "Even where a legitimate proprietary interest is shown, the court ensures the restraint goes no further than necessary to protect that interest.", "verbatimQuote": "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.", "date": "2010-02-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-claas-no-further" }, { "id": "claas-three-year", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon Ching", "citation": "CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon Ching [2010] SGCA 3; [2010] 2 SLR 386.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2010_SGCA_3", "proposition": "A three-year period of restraint given by the seller of a business was held not to be unreasonable.", "verbatimQuote": "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.", "date": "2010-02-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-claas-three-year" }, { "id": "claas-liquidated", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon Ching", "citation": "CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon Ching [2010] SGCA 3; [2010] 2 SLR 386.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2010_SGCA_3", "proposition": "A sum stipulated for breach is enforceable if it is a genuine pre-estimate of loss but not if it is a penalty.", "verbatimQuote": "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.", "date": "2010-02-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-claas-liquidated" } ] }, { "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. 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.", "sources": [ { "id": "hengxin-repudiation", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Hengxin Technology Ltd v Jiang Wei", "citation": "Hengxin Technology Ltd v Jiang Wei [2009] SGHC 259.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2009_SGHC_259", "proposition": "Under 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.", "verbatimQuote": "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.", "date": "2009-11-19", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-hengxin-repudiation" } ] }, { "slug": "garden-leave", "label": "Is garden leave treated like a non-compete?", "heading": "Is garden leave treated the same as a non-compete?", "answerText": "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.", "sources": [ { "id": "mano-garden-leave", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Mano Vikrant Singh v Cargill TSF Asia Pte Ltd", "citation": "Mano Vikrant Singh v Cargill TSF Asia Pte Ltd [2012] SGCA 42.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2012_SGCA_42", "proposition": "Garden 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.", "verbatimQuote": "Post termination employment restraints are thus not assessed with the same level of flexibility as garden leave provisions.", "date": "2012-08-07", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-mano-garden-leave" } ] }, { "slug": "extended-for-breach", "label": "Does the restriction pause during a breach?", "heading": "Does a Singapore non-compete pause or extend if the employee breaches?", "answerText": "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.", "sources": [ { "id": "springboard-goh", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Goh Seng Heng v RSP Investments Pte Ltd", "citation": "Goh Seng Heng v RSP Investments Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 275; [2017] 3 SLR 657.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2016_SGHC_275", "proposition": "The 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.", "verbatimQuote": "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.", "date": "2016-12-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-springboard-goh" } ] }, { "slug": "enforcement-remedies", "label": "How do employers enforce a non-compete?", "heading": "How is a Singapore non-compete enforced?", "answerText": "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.", "sources": [ { "id": "shopee-validity", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong", "citation": "Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong [2024] SGHC 29.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2024_SGHC_29", "proposition": "To 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.", "verbatimQuote": "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.", "date": "2024-01-11", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-shopee-validity" }, { "id": "rga-injunction", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "RGA Holdings International Inc v Loh Choon Phing Robin", "citation": "RGA Holdings International Inc v Loh Choon Phing Robin [2017] SGCA 55.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2017_SGCA_55", "proposition": "Where 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.", "verbatimQuote": "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.", "date": "2017-07-05", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-rga-injunction" }, { "id": "q10-springboard", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Goh Seng Heng v RSP Investments Pte Ltd", "citation": "Goh Seng Heng v RSP Investments Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 275; [2017] 3 SLR 657.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2016_SGHC_275", "proposition": "The springboard injunction lasts only while the unfairly obtained advantage is still being enjoyed; it neutralises a head-start rather than extending the covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "There was also no doubt that Quikglow still enjoyed the unfair advantage which it had obtained as a result of these wrongs.", "date": "2016-12-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-q10-springboard" }, { "id": "tky-damages", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Tan Kok Yong Steve v Itochu Singapore Pte Ltd", "citation": "Tan Kok Yong Steve v Itochu Singapore Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 85.", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2018_SGHC_85", "proposition": "A 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.", "verbatimQuote": "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.", "date": "2018-04-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-tky-damages" } ] }, { "slug": "upcoming-guidance", "label": "Are new government guidelines coming?", "heading": "Are new MOM guidelines on non-competes coming?", "answerText": "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.", "sources": [ { "id": "mom-cos", "authorityType": "agency-guidance", "tier": "official-source-backed", "title": "MOM SMS Speech at Committee of Supply 2026", "citation": "MOM, Speech by SMS for Manpower at the Committee of Supply 2026 (3 Mar 2026).", "url": "https://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/speeches/2026/0303-sms-speech-for-cos-2026", "proposition": "As 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.", "verbatimQuote": "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.", "date": "2026-03-03", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-mom-cos" }, { "id": "mom-pq", "authorityType": "agency-guidance", "tier": "official-source-backed", "title": "MOM Written Answer to PQ on Tripartite Guidelines on Restraint of Trade Clauses", "citation": "MOM, Written Answer to PQ on Tripartite Guidelines on Restraint of Trade Clauses in Employment Contracts (7 Jan 2025).", "url": "https://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/parliament-questions-and-replies/2025/0107-written-answer-to-pq-on-tripartite-guidelines-on-restraint-of-trade-clauses", "proposition": "As 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.", "verbatimQuote": "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.", "date": "2025-01-07", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg#src-mom-pq" } ] } ] } }