A doctor practicing cosmetic surgery turned to us for advice on the validity and applicability of a particular clause in his employment contract as follows: – Therefore, any legal action by the employer to obtain an injunction to prevent the cosmetic surgeon from practising must fail on the grounds that the commercial restriction clause requested by the employer is illegal and void. Dynacast`s lawsuit failed because it did not specify what kind of confidential information or trade secrets were allegedly misappropriated by Mr. Cheok. Looking at the 103 sections of the act, things seem bleak for the employee, because none of the provisions in it deal with whether an employer has the right to include such an inappropriate clause in the employment contract. With this feeling in mind, employees would then review their employment contract to consider things like their expected notice period, their expected responsibilities at the time of termination, and their claims. Now that they are equipped with the necessary knowledge, employees are now all ready and ready to go, but there seems to be an obstacle that prevents them from doing so – a small clause in their employment contract that says something like: Another case that illustrates the application of the reasonable test is the case of the Centre for Creative Leadership (CCL) Pte Ltd v Byrne Roger Peter and others. The applicant was a company that offered a leadership training program. The first and third defendants were employees of the plaintiff. Their employment contract with the applicant contained a restriction on the commercial agreement, which was a non-compete obligation.

Later, both resigned and joined another company, Roffey Park. One of the applicant`s main clients requested offers from the applicant, Roffey Park and another company. However, the applicant did not receive an offer, while Roffey Park received one of the bids. The applicant alleged that Mr. Byrne and Mr. Jenkins, as employees of the applicant, provided and designed programs for the client. Consequently, the plaintiff sued the first and third defendants for breach of the non-compete obligation. whether the non-compete obligation was enforceable; The court succeeded in identifying two main interests to be protected, namely trade secrets and business relationships. It was found that Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Byrne had an influence on the plaintiff`s client, which made him a legitimate protective interest. However, parts two and three of the test were not met, as the territorial scope, duration and scope of the activities were unreasonably broad having regard to the interests of the parties […].