Singapore High Court upholds non-compete clause in employment contract of former broker: Interesting Read

-
Published date: 30 Mar 2015
Singapore High Court upholds non-compete clause in employment contract of former broker
Phua Woon Mahina v GFI Group Pte Ltd Originating Summons No. 4 of 2015
 
On 5 February 2015, the Singapore High Court upheld a non-compete clause in the employment contract between a leading inter-dealer broker, GFI Singapore, and one of its employees.
 
The court presided by Woo Bih Li J found that the non-compete clause was no wider than reasonably necessary for the protection of GFI Singapore’s legitimate interests.
 
Background
 
The plaintiff was a senior broker with the defendant, GFI Singapore. GFI Singapore is the Singapore office of the GFI Group, a global interdealer brokerage firm headquartered in New York.
 
The plaintiff’s employment contract with GFI Singapore contained a non-compete clause which prohibited her from working for a competitor and from soliciting any of GFI Singapore’s clients for a period of six months after the termination of her employment (the “Non-Compete Clause”). The Non-Compete Clause did not contain any geographical limitation.
 
The plaintiff wished to join Tullett Prebon Singapore, one of GFI Singapore’s main competitors, before the expiry of the six-month restrictive period. She commenced an action in the Singapore High Court to declare the Non-Compete Clause void for restraint of trade.
 
Defendant’s legitimate interests
 
GFI Singapore argued that the Non-Compete Clause was reasonable as it was necessary to protect its legitimate interests in trade connections, workforce stability and confidential information.
 
On trade connections and workforce stability, GFI Singapore argued that owing to the strength of the personal relationships between a broker and his clients, there was a real risk that his clients will follow him when a broker leaves his employer. In addition, a broker’s departure may have a destabilising effect on the employer’s existing workforce, as the leaving broker’s colleagues may be tempted to leave to follow him. Personal relationships are of special significance in the interdealer brokerage industry.
 
On confidential information, GFI Singapore argued that the Non-Compete Clause was necessary to protect its confidential brokerage rates and other sensitive information from its competitors. Even if the broker undertook not to divulge the information, such an undertaking was difficult to enforce and the risk of wrongful divulging remained.
 
Worldwide scope
 
The Non-Compete Clause did not contain a geographical limitation and was thus applicable worldwide. This made its scope potentially unreasonable.
 
Nevertheless, modern telecommunications technology makes it possible for a broker to compete with his or her ex-employer not just locally, but from abroad as well. GFI Singapore thus argued that a worldwide Non-Compete Clause was not unreasonably wide to protect its interests.
 
Judgment
 
Taking into account GFI Singapore’s submissions, the court upheld the Non-Compete Clause and dismissed the plaintiff’s application with costs.
 
Non-compete clauses in the interdealer brokerage industry have previously been litigated in other common law jurisdictions, including England, Hong Kong and Australia. This case is significant because it was the first case in Singapore specifically dealing with a non-compete clause in the interdealer brokerage industry.
 
Key take-aways
 
When drafting non-compete clauses, an employer should be able to point to at least one specific legitimate interest that it is attempting to protect. The scope of the clause should also be no wider than necessary in the context of the specific industry. If the restrictions imposed are wide, the employer would need to have strong and clear grounds to justify them. For instance, if the non-compete clause imposes restrictions worldwide, it will need to show that it has a significant international business presence to justify such a global restriction.
 
Allen & Gledhill Partner Tay Yong Seng represented the successful defendant, GFI Singapore, in this matter.
 
 
If you would like to discuss the impact of this case on your business, please contact:
 
+65 6890 7808

Reference from http://www.allenandgledhill.com/pages/publications.aspx?list=FSBulletinAreas&pub_id=867&topic=Financial+Services+Bulletin+March+2015

Comments

Post a Comment

Please share your valuable comments and thoughts on this article. Thanks!

Popular posts from this blog

Responding to Software Review Audits- Good tips on how to handle audit requests and settlements

-
Image
Managing Audits to Prevent Unauthorized Disclosures by Technology Teams by Keli Johnson Swan in Blogs , Software Audits Disputes involving software usage are on the rise for businesses of all sizes. In some cases, technical teams respond to a software publisher’s or a third party’s audit request and provide significant amounts of data without notifying anyone on the corporate governance or the legal teams.  It is critical for those teams to evaluate the publisher’s legal ability to audit, and to identify the data the publisher is entitled to request. It is not uncommon for the legal team to discover the existence of a software audit or license verification after the company has received a demand for damages arising from alleged over-usage of software. Often, employees responding to an audit request do not understand the request and provide inaccurate or incomplete information. Once this information is disclosed, it can expose the business to a damages...
Read more

20 apps to help provide easier access to legal help: Good list of apps. Check it out

-
Image
20 apps to help provide easier access to legal help BY JOE DYSART APRIL 1, 2015, 6:01 AM CDT Reference:  http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/20_apps_providing_easier_access_to_legal_help Image from  Shutterstock . Just as the smartphone brought computing to the cyberchallenged, it is putting justice into the hands of some who may need it most. Apps for immigrants, the indigent, those who face arrest and the lawyers who help them have been popping up with increasing frequency. And many of those closest to the technology believe the momentum behind the developments is just starting to build. “People talk a lot about digital technologies revolutionizing legal practice,” says Tanina Rostain, a law professor at Georgetown Law Center who teaches a course on the potential of Internet-based technologies for legal practice and pedagogy. “This is the area where the revolution is happening.” Not surprisingly, among the earliest promulgators of justice apps ar...
Read more

Influencers in the workplace: Can promotional work on social media be regarded as moonlighting?

-
Image
  Lawtons Africa Jun 9, 2023 4 min read Influencers in the workplace: Can promotional work on social media be regarded as moonlighting? Author: Andile Mphale– Candidate Attorney Supervised by: Lavery Modise– Consultant https://www.lawtonsafrica.com/post/influencers-in-the-workplace-can-promotional-work-on-social-media-be-regarded-as-moonlighting The use of social media has many benefits; one of them being the creation of work and income opportunities, such as doing promotional work on social media. Promotional work on social media has also given rise to the term “influencer”. An influencer is someone with a substantial following or a notable online presence, who can influence potential consumers into purchasing a product or service through social media endorsements or recommendations and receive a reward for that. There are influencers who do promotional work on social media on a full-time basis and make a living from it. There are also influencers who do promotional work on social...
Read more