1.0 IntroductionThe issue concerned the fact that restraint of trade in Singapore continued to evolve and that the restraint of trade clause in a restrictive contract was used by the employer to prevent the employee to leave and join a competitor. Nowadays, many companies would use restraint of trade clauses in collective agreements. This prevented employees from joining competitors in the future in order to eliminate competition with other competitors in the same industry. Furthermore, the restraint of trade is normally applied as part of the sale of a trade agreement. Restraint of Trade on Employment Contracts and Sale of Trade Agreement are used to protect business relationships and trade secrets. The clauses must be reasonable and not detrimental to the parties to the contracts. However, where restraint of trade clauses are used to prevent competition or prevent a person from carrying on a commercial activity, they will be unenforceable. The Singapore Court of Appeal held that the restraint of trade clause was void where former employees set up competing businesses with their former employers. This can be discussed in the cases of Mano Vikrant Singh (MVS) v Cargill TSF Asia Pte Ltd [2012] and Smile Inc Dental Surgeons Pte Ltd v Lui Andrew Stewart [2012]. following. This is supported by some cases in the following analysis. 2.0 Meaning of Restraint of Trade in Singapore Restraint of trade acts as a restriction in employment contracts (restrictive covenants). The employer used restraint of trade clauses to prohibit competition with other competitors. However, the court would be void if it was found that the restraint of trade clauses were included in the restr...... middle of paper ......VS) v Cargill TSF Asia Pte Ltd [2012] and Smile Inc Dental Surgeons Pte Ltd v Lui Andrew Stewart [2012] are the recent cases which serve as good examples to explain the invalidity of restraint of trade clauses. Considering all these examples, Singapore courts are giving more protection to employees. The court made the best decisions to prevent employers from restricting the freedoms of employees. Most trade restrictive covenants restrict the liberality of employees, which prevents them from daring to leave their old job, even if it is worse for it. In addition, employees would also not dare to join competitors after leaving their previous job. This would result in loss of income for employees. In conclusion, the restraint of trade was not valid in Singapore. The clauses would be void if they concerned commercial restrictions.