Correction: The original version of this post was wrong. Although its title concerned restraint-of-trade clauses, its body discussed Singapore permanent-residence statistics and salary bands. That unrelated material has been removed. This replacement states the current Singapore legal position and the verified status of the proposed tripartite guidelines.

Current position as at 15 July 2026: Singapore has not introduced a new statutory code that automatically validates or invalidates employment non-compete clauses. Their enforceability remains governed by the courts under established common-law principles and depends on the facts and drafting of each case.

MOM and its tripartite partners have been discussing guidelines on restrictive clauses. However, there is presently no confirmed publication date and no published final text or detailed rules. Employers and employees should not treat predictions about a 2026 release, fixed duration limits, salary cut-offs or automatic retrenchment exemptions as law or confirmed policy.

What is a restraint-of-trade clause?

A post-employment restraint may seek to restrict a former employee from competing, joining certain businesses, soliciting customers or employees, or dealing with specified customers for a period after employment ends. A confidentiality obligation is related but legally distinct: it regulates use or disclosure of protected information rather than simply preventing competition.

Labels do not decide enforceability. A clause described as “non-solicitation”, “non-dealing” or something else may still be examined as a restraint of trade if its substance restricts a person’s freedom to work or trade.

The current common-law test

In MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko [2024] SGHC 94, the General Division of the High Court restated the governing approach. In the employment context, restraint-of-trade clauses are prima facie void and unenforceable. An employer seeking to enforce one must satisfy a two-stage test:

  1. Legitimate proprietary interest: the restraint must protect a legitimate interest of the employer, rather than merely suppress competition.
  2. Reasonableness: if such an interest exists, the restraint must be reasonable between the parties and reasonable in the public interest.

Recognised interests can include protection against misuse of trade secrets or confidential information, protection of special trade connections built up with customers and, in appropriate circumstances, protection of a stable and specially trained workforce. The employer must identify the actual interest and connect the restriction to the employee’s real role and access. A desire to stop a capable former employee from joining a competitor is not, by itself, a proprietary interest.

Confidentiality clauses do not automatically justify a non-compete

MoneySmart applied the binding Court of Appeal principles in Man Financial. Where confidential information or trade secrets are already protected by a separate confidentiality clause, the employer must show that the non-compete protects a legitimate proprietary interest over and above the interest already protected by that confidentiality clause.

The fact that a confidentiality breach may be difficult to detect does not, without more, create an additional legitimate interest. Employers should therefore identify information precisely, control and classify it properly, and draft confidentiality provisions that match actual business practices.

Reasonableness is fact-specific

There is no automatic “safe” duration of three, six or twelve months. The court examines the clause as a whole, including:

  • the activities prohibited;
  • the employee’s former responsibilities and access;
  • the customers or workforce relationships involved;
  • the geographical area;
  • the duration; and
  • the effect on the employee’s ability to earn a living and on the public interest.

In MoneySmart, the High Court found the clause unreasonable in its prohibited activities, geographical scope and temporal scope. Among other matters, it was not confined to work in the same or a similar capacity, reached markets without a sufficiently close connection to the employee’s former work, and used cascading periods of twelve, six and three months. The court considered that cascading structure capable of creating an unfair deterrent or in terrorem effect.

The court discharged the interim injunctions. It found that the non-compete did not protect the asserted legitimate proprietary interests and was not reasonable. The result was based on the evidence and drafting in that case; it does not mean every restraint fails or that every shorter restraint succeeds.

Courts will not rewrite an overbroad bargain

Severance is limited. A court may apply the “blue pencil” test only where offending words can be removed without adding or modifying language, while leaving a grammatically sensible provision supported by consideration and without changing the contract’s fundamental character. It is not generally open to an employer to draft an excessive restriction and later select only the countries or activities it wishes to enforce.

Status of the proposed tripartite guidelines

MOM said in February 2024 that guidelines were then targeted for the second half of 2024. That target passed without publication. In a 7 January 2025 parliamentary answer, MOM said it was discussing with NTUC and SNEF how and when restrictive clauses should be used and that details would be made available in due course.

The latest directly relevant primary statement located is MOM’s Committee of Supply speech of 3 March 2026. It again said discussions were continuing, that the guidelines would be based on established court principles, and that MOM would update further “in due course”. It did not announce a publication date or substantive rules.

Accordingly, as at 15 July 2026, it would be inaccurate to state that the guidelines will be issued in the second half of 2026 or to present expected duration caps, geographical limits, salary thresholds, retrenchment rules, penalties or legal effects as settled. These may only be assessed when the tripartite partners publish an official document.

What employers should do now

  1. Inventory non-compete, non-solicitation, non-dealing, confidentiality and garden-leave provisions.
  2. Record the specific legitimate interest said to justify each restriction.
  3. Match the restriction to the employee’s actual role, customers, information, territory and risk period.
  4. Avoid applying standard non-competes to entire workforces without a role-specific basis.
  5. Do not assume that a cascading clause or a severance sentence will rescue excessive drafting.
  6. Review confidentiality controls and customer-access records, not only contract wording.
  7. Obtain Singapore employment-law advice before threatening proceedings or seeking an injunction.

What employees should do

Do not assume a restraint is enforceable merely because it appears in a signed contract, but do not simply ignore it either. Preserve the contract and relevant correspondence, avoid taking or using confidential material, and obtain advice before joining a competitor, soliciting contacts or responding to a legal demand. Employees who believe a clause is unreasonable may also approach their union, TAFEP or MOM, as stated in MOM’s 29 February 2024 parliamentary answer.

Primary sources

Accurate as at and last reviewed: 15 July 2026.

Other Related Posts