The clause reached across all of Australia - and that scope shaped the outcome
The Supreme Court of Queensland refused an employer's interim bid to enforce a non-compete and block a former sales executive's move to a new employer.
In reasons delivered on July 20, 2026, the court explained why it had dismissed Stryker Australia's application for an interlocutory injunction - an interim order sought before trial - that would have barred a former sales executive from starting work at a start-up.
The worker had been with Stryker, a medical technology business that sells devices to hospitals and surgeons, since 2015. Her most recent role, "Executive Territory Manager – Endoscopy," involved selling surgical camera systems across a set territory covering Brisbane's south, the Gold Coast, northern New South Wales and Townsville. She resigned in June 2026 to join a start-up, and Stryker - which contended the start-up was a competitor - applied to the court to stop the move.
Her contract contained several post-employment restraints. She offered undertakings to the court to comply with most of them, including clauses on soliciting customers, poaching staff and interfering with client relationships. That left one clause in dispute: the one preventing her from joining a competing business.
The court described that clause as broad. It could apply for up to 12 months, could extend as far as the whole of Australia, and could be triggered by having "directly or indirectly" even peripheral involvement with a product up to two years earlier. The court observed that the clause's reach could go "a long way to barring [the worker] from the whole field of medical equipment." Under Australian law, a restraint is presumed invalid unless the employer proves it does no more than protect a legitimate business interest, and the employer carries that burden. The court found there was a strong argument the clause went beyond Stryker's legitimate interests, but it did not make a final ruling on the clause's validity.
The court then weighed the balance of convenience - which side stood to suffer more before a trial could be held. Stryker argued the worker held confidential sales strategy and hospital information, but the court said no specific information had been identified. Her position, the court found, "was not a management role"; she was "a sales executive with a limited territorial brief." Her recent return from maternity leave, a narrow current assignment, and the fact that other representatives were already servicing her former territory all reduced the risk of harm to the company.
The potential harm to the worker was greater, the court found. She was her family's principal earner, paid largely through commission, and an injunction would have left the household without income for an uncertain period. On that basis, the application was dismissed and costs were reserved.
The worker also gave evidence that her resignation had been prompted, in part, by what she described as "offensive and harassing conduct in the workplace." The court made no finding on that point, and it was not the issue before it.
For HR teams, the case is a practical reminder about how restraints are tested. Courts look at the substance of a role - actual seniority, genuine access to confidential information, and any real overlap between the old and new employer - rather than the breadth of the contract wording. Sweeping "directly or indirectly" language and nationwide scope can weaken a restraint rather than strengthen it. The decision is interlocutory: it resolves only the pre-trial injunction, and the wider proceeding continues.
