Not an expert but doesn’t pass the pub test.

Unlikely to be enforceable. Depending on the positions themselves to some extent.

Making a position redundant and then trying to argue the company is protecting legitimate business interests would be challenging in court.

@ApplePark I think you're broadly right that it's not enforceable due to Wisetech making the employees redundant. However it could be in certain instances.

It's usually enforceable if employees signed a non-compete clause as part of their original employment contract (or at any time during their employment) and then leave the company of their own free will. It is also broadly referred to as a post-employment restraint or restraint of trade clause.

They are always for set periods of time, and when employees choose to leave, they are certainly usually enforceable, however there is some conjecture that when a company makes you redundant, a non-compete clause may only be enforceable for the period that the redundancy payout would have employed you for should you not have been made redundant, so if they give you the equivalent of 6 months worth of salary or wages and you have a non-compete clause in your employment contract that is supposed to be for 12 months, it may be difficult for the company to enforce that after 6 months since THEY made you leave and you need to be able to make a living after they fire you (/make you redundant).

Others say that the amount of the redundancy has no relevance, nor the period of time it would have covered you if you had remained employed.

I have heard of companies taking legal action against former employees who take on paid employment in contravention of non-compete clauses and the former employees counter sue or simply defend the action brought against them by the ex-employer on the basis that the company is unfairly restricting them from earning a living citing the financial and emotional toll that is taking on them and would take if the company is successful in their litigation against the former employee(s).

Google says:

If an ex-employer sues you to enforce a non-compete clause after making you redundant, your primary defense is to argue that the redundancy has made the restraint unreasonable and unenforceable. Under Australian employment law, courts are highly reluctant to enforce a non-compete against an employee whose position was eliminated, as the employer has already declared they no longer need your services.

To protect your right to work and defend yourself against legal action, you should take the following urgent steps:

1. Assert the "Reasonableness" Defense

• Argue No Legitimate Interest: Point out that because your role was made redundant, the employer cannot logically claim your immediate employment elsewhere poses an existential threat to a position they just eliminated.
• Highlight Hardship: Emphasise to the court that enforcing the clause causes you severe financial hardship, especially since you did not choose to leave the business voluntarily.
• Challenge Breadth: Argue that the geographic radius or duration of the non-compete is far too wide and serves only to punish you, rather than protect the business.

2. Check for a Breach of Contract (The Repudiation Defense)

• Review Redundancy Terms: Check if your employer paid your full redundancy entitlements, notice periods, and outstanding leave.
• Claim Repudiation: If your employer failed to pay you correctly, breached your contract, or terminated you unfairly, they have "repudiated" the employment contract. In Australian law, an employer who breaches a contract generally loses the right to enforce its post-employment restraints against you.

3. Gather Immediate Evidence

• Secure Termination Documents: Keep your official redundancy letter, separation certificates, and any emails proving the company initiated the termination due to operational requirements.
• Document Your Job Search: Keep records of your job applications to show the court that you are actively trying to mitigate your financial loss and that the non-compete is actively blocking your livelihood.
• Isolate New Duties: If you have already accepted a new job, get a clear written description of your new duties to prove you are not actively poaching clients or using confidential trade secrets.

4. Respond to the Legal Threat

• Do Not Ignore a Letter of Demand: If you receive a "Cease and Desist" letter, ignoring it can lead to the employer seeking an urgent injunction (a court order to stop you from working).
• Negotiate an Undertaking: Have a lawyer draft a response offering a "compromise undertaking"—such as agreeing not to approach their clients for a set period, in exchange for them dropping the full non-compete ban.

5. Seek Urgent Legal Support

• Employment Lawyers: Retain a specialised workplace lawyer immediately to respond to court documents or letters of demand.
• Community Legal Centres: If you cannot afford a private lawyer, contact your local state legal aid or a Community Legal Centre for free or low-cost guidance.
• Your Union: If you are a member of a trade union, contact them immediately; they frequently provide legal representation for members facing post-employment restraint disputes.

--- ends ---

There's more, but clearly it's not cut and dry in terms of Wisetech holding all the cards. They weaken their own position by making the employees redundant.

In my opinion, Wisetech are most worried about the ex-employees joining other companies and then "poaching" Wisetech's customers / clients, and in those situations they would likely go with a litigation approach, and they are warning these employees now that this is going to be the outcome should that situation occur.

I think a lot of the employees that were laid off are in other countries (China) & not under Australian employment jurisdiction.

I'm not sure what, if any, work protections they have. Equally, I'd be curious how much money Wisetech intends on spending enforcing the non-competes.

In addition, non-competes may be banned from 2027 onwards for employees earning less than the high income threshold. For these Wisetech employees, I’m going to guess they’re mostly above that threshold but maybe some newer / junior staff are below it.

@Bear77 What I find most amusing about this situation is Richard White has recently said they have "no competition".

Now they have announced the plan to lay off one third of the work force they have decided they do have competition - a larger list at first, subsequently culled back to four companies after negotiations. And they have clearly put some thought into it rather than a quick google search, as one of the companies is a small Aussie start up...

The way they have handled the redundancies is appalling from a staff and culture point of view. A public announcement that one third of you are going but months later, they have still only confirmed 10% of them, so all of the other staff are either worried they are next or mentally checking out already. Richard White has then added it now takes them 15 minutes to code an AI agent better than a human...I'm sure all the staff were relieved to hear that from their boss as they wait around for a tap on the shoulder! And most that do end up going are now going to have a bad taste in their mouth and would be much more likely to end up spilling the beans or working against them in the future.

It's just the latest example of Richard stating things that either aren't correct or very quickly thereafter changes positions on, so after a long pattern like that I don't believe much of what he says. And when we have a leader like that, how can we really believe anything that comes out of the company (like the accounts for example...)

Yeah @Karmast - I stopped trusting their management last year, especially RW and their Board governance, as I also did with MinRes due to CE and their Board in 2024. When you have an MD with a huge ego and a God-complex who has a compliant Board - or is prepared to keep adjusting their own Board to ensure they have the numbers to do what ever they like - and get away with it - and the founder/leader has a track record of lying and looking after their own interests before the company's interests, that's not a place I want to have direct exposure to, and the culture is always going to be poor, and is clearly getting much worse at WTC.

By staying on the sidelines I lost out on plenty of upside as MinRes (MIN) beat the odds and staged a magnificent comeback in terms of both operational execution and their strong share price uptrend over the past 14 months (since April last year), but that's OK, you can't be invested in everything. WTC and MIN both remain on my avoid list. Happy to avoid both the upside and the downside risks with companies whose management I can't trust and refuse to back.

I agree @Bear77 . Both these companies were on my watchlist, but I can't see myself pulling the trigger now due to the unknown unknowns. If the leaders were that brazen in the past, and got away with it, then what lies in the future?