Garden leave in Australian iGaming: what employers and employees need to know
Garden leave clauses are appearing in more Australian iGaming employment contracts, but many operators and employees misunderstand how they work in practice. Here's what the arrangement actually covers.
Photo by Mikhail Nilov on Pexels
Garden leave sits in an awkward middle ground in Australian iGaming employment. The employee is technically still employed, still paid, but barred from working for a competitor or returning to the office. For operators protecting pricing models, client relationships, or proprietary risk frameworks, it's a powerful tool. For departing executives, it can feel like a paid cage. Understanding how it functions under Australian law matters for both sides of the negotiation.
What garden leave actually is
Garden leave (sometimes called gardening leave) is a period during which an employee who has resigned, or been given notice, continues on the payroll but is told not to attend work and not to contact clients, colleagues, or competitors. The contract of employment stays active throughout. The employee keeps receiving their salary and benefits, but their duties are suspended.
It differs from a non-compete clause in one critical respect: it operates during the notice period, not after employment ends. A non-compete clause in Australian iGaming tries to restrict a former employee once the contract terminates. Garden leave restricts them while it's still running. Courts treat the two mechanisms differently, and the enforceability questions are distinct.
Australian courts have generally been willing to enforce garden leave clauses when they are clearly drafted and the employer continues to pay the full contractual salary. The period can't be unreasonably long. Six months is common at senior levels in financial services and iGaming. Twelve months is rare and harder to justify without a genuinely exceptional business case.
Why iGaming operators use it
The iGaming sector has specific characteristics that make garden leave attractive. Trading and risk teams often hold detailed knowledge of pricing models, margin structures, and automated betting detection systems. A product director leaving for a direct competitor with live access to platform architecture poses a real commercial risk.
The three most common reasons Australian iGaming operators invoke garden leave are:
- Protecting proprietary technology details, particularly in payments and fraud detection
- Preventing the departing employee from soliciting the employer's clients or affiliates before the notice period expires
- Creating time to complete a handover and transition sensitive relationships to a successor
Operators building head of risk or chief product functions are particularly likely to include garden leave provisions, since those roles carry concentrated knowledge about systems that are expensive to rebuild if compromised.
How Australian courts assess enforceability
Australian employment law doesn't have a single statute governing garden leave. Enforceability sits in contract law and equitable principles. A few factors consistently influence how courts respond when an employer seeks an injunction to enforce a garden leave clause.
First: is the employer actually paying? Courts won't enforce garden leave if the employer has repudiated the contract by refusing to pay salary or stripping benefits. Full pay is the baseline. Second: is the period proportionate to the role? A three-month notice period with a three-month garden leave component is common and defensible. A six-month period for a mid-level analyst is much harder to justify. Third: is there a legitimate business interest being protected? General inconvenience isn't enough. The employer needs to point to specific confidential information, client relationships, or competitive intelligence that warrants restraint.
The Fair Work Act 2009 doesn't specifically address garden leave, but it constrains what operators can do during the period. Employees remain entitled to their employment entitlements, including superannuation contributions. Operators can't unilaterally strip benefits during garden leave without risking a constructive dismissal claim.
What employees should watch for in their contracts
Most senior iGaming contracts contain a garden leave clause buried in the notice section rather than in a separate restraint clause. It usually reads something like: "During any notice period, the Company may at its discretion require you to remain away from the workplace and refrain from conducting business on behalf of the Company."
That language gives the employer discretion. It doesn't guarantee it will be used. But employees should treat it as likely to be exercised on any contentious departure. A few specific points to check before signing:
Does the clause specify that salary and benefits continue in full? If it's ambiguous, negotiate clarity. Does it define what activities are prohibited? A broad prohibition on "any work" could prevent a departing employee from freelancing, even in unrelated fields. Does it allow for early release? Some contracts permit the employer to waive the garden leave period and bring the notice period to an end earlier, which benefits both parties if the commercial risk has passed.
Candidates negotiating equity or deferred incentives should also check how garden leave interacts with vesting schedules. A poorly drafted clause could see equity vest during garden leave but become forfeit if the operator argues the employee is in breach of their obligations.
The cost to operators
Garden leave isn't free. Paying a departing senior hire full salary for three to six months while they contribute nothing operational is a real budget line. For a chief product officer or a general manager on a $350,000 package, a six-month garden leave period costs around $175,000 in base salary alone, before superannuation and continued benefits.
Operators sometimes underestimate this cost when drafting contracts. The clause feels like protection in the abstract, but by the time a departure happens the business is paying for a seat that's empty, a successor who may already be onboarded, and legal fees if the departing employee challenges the restriction.
The practical answer for most operators is to set the garden leave period at a length they're genuinely willing to fund, not the maximum the contract might theoretically support. Three months is common. Six months is reasonable for roles with access to genuinely sensitive IP. Anything longer should be backed by a specific legal opinion.
Negotiating an early release
Both parties benefit from a clean, early exit when the commercial threat has been neutralised. The employer stops paying for an empty desk. The employee can start their next role. Early release from garden leave is negotiable, and most Australian iGaming operators will agree to it when the departing employee isn't going directly to a named competitor and has completed an acceptable handover.
The request should be made in writing. Agree on a specific release date and confirm it removes any ongoing restrictions arising from the garden leave period. Don't rely on a verbal conversation with an HR manager; get it in writing from someone with authority to bind the company.
If an operator refuses to release early and the employee has no genuine competitive threat to pose, the employee's lawyer can write to the company pointing out that the restraint serves no legitimate business purpose at that point. That letter often produces a negotiated resolution faster than a court application.
Interaction with redundancy and restructuring
Garden leave clauses typically apply to resignations and dismissals but don't always operate cleanly in genuine redundancy situations. If a role is made redundant, the employee is usually entitled to redundancy pay calculated on their period of service. Garden leave doesn't typically substitute for redundancy entitlements; it runs alongside the notice period.
Operators restructuring teams and using garden leave during the process should take specific legal advice. Mischaracterising a redundancy as a resignation, or using garden leave to delay a genuine redundancy payment, exposes the company to unfair dismissal claims and general protections applications under the Fair Work Act.
The safest approach is to keep garden leave provisions clearly separated from redundancy provisions in the contract, with each clause addressing its own scenario. Ambiguity in this area is consistently the source of disputes that are expensive for both parties.