Non-Compete Clause Enforceability by Jurisdiction

A post-employment non-compete is generally unenforceable in India. Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 voids agreements that restrain a person from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business, with narrow, specific exceptions — post-employment restraints are not one of them, regardless of how reasonable the duration or geography.

A non-compete is enforceable in the UK only if it protects a legitimate business interest and is no wider than reasonably necessary in duration, geography, and scope. UK courts start from the presumption that restraints of trade are void, and the employer bears the burden of justifying the specific restriction as reasonable.

Singapore follows the English common-law approach: a non-compete is enforceable only if it protects a legitimate proprietary interest and is reasonable in duration, geographic scope, and the activities it restricts. Courts will not enforce a restraint whose real purpose is simply to prevent competition rather than to protect a specific, identifiable business interest.

Onshore UAE law permits non-compete clauses if they are limited in time, place, and type of work, and reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest — federal labour and civil law both address this directly. The DIFC and ADGM free zones apply a separate, English-style common-law reasonableness test instead of the onshore framework.

Non-compete enforceability in the US varies dramatically by state — there is no single national answer. Some states broadly prohibit employee non-competes outright, most others enforce them if reasonable in duration, geography, and scope, and a growing number impose salary thresholds or other conditions. Which state's law applies is the first, and often decisive, question.

There is no single EU-wide rule on non-compete enforceability — it's governed by each member state's own law. A distinguishing feature across many EU countries, though, is a requirement that the employer pay the employee compensation during the restricted period as a condition of enforceability — a requirement not typically found in UK or US law.

A non-compete is enforceable in Australia only if it protects a legitimate business interest and is no wider than reasonably necessary in duration, geography, and scope — the same common-law reasonableness test applied in the UK and Singapore. Australian courts start from the presumption that a restraint of trade is void and place the burden on the employer to justify it.

Non-compete enforceability in Canada depends on which legal system governs. Common-law provinces apply a strict reasonableness test that courts have historically enforced narrowly for ordinary employees, while Quebec's Civil Code expressly regulates non-competition clauses, requiring the restriction be limited as to time, place, and type of employment to be valid.