1.0 Introduction The question was that the restraint of trade in Singapore was continuing to evolve and the restraint of trade clause in the restrictive contract was being used by the employer to prevent the employee to leave and join a competitor. Nowadays, there are many companies that use restraint of trade clauses in employment agreements. It previously prevented employees from joining competitors in the future in order to eliminate competition with other competitors in the same industry. Furthermore, restraint of trade is normally applied in the sale of trade agreements. Restraint of trade on employment contracts and commercial contract sales is used to protect business connections and trade secrets. The clauses must be reasonable and not detrimental to the contracting parties. However, when restrictive trade clauses are used to prevent competition or prevent a person from carrying on a business, they will be unenforceable. The Singapore Court of Appeal held that the restraining trade clause was void when 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]. The discussion of the trade restraint argument is as follows. This is supported by some cases in the following discussion. 2.0 Meaning of Restriction of Trade in Singapore Restriction of Trade behaves like a restriction in employment contracts (restrictive covenants). The employer used restrictive trade clauses to enforce a non-compete with other competitors. However, the court would be reversed if it were found that 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] were the recent cases which were good examples to explain the invalidity of restrictive trade clauses. Looking at all these examples, Singapore courts are giving more protection to employees. The court found that the best decisions to prevent employers from limiting the freedom of employees. Most restrictive trade clauses have limited the generosity of employees, forcing them not to dare to leave their previous employment, even if it would be worse for them. Furthermore, employees would not dare to join competitors after leaving their previous jobs. This would cause employees to lose their living income. In conclusion, the restraint of trade was not valid in Singapore. The clauses would be void if they concerned the restriction of trade.