The Honourable Mr Justice Ritchie decides that a US retail giant’s attempt to enforce a 12-month non-compete clause against its former UK employee went “further than is reasonably necessary to protect the Claimant’s legitimate business interests and is unenforceable.”
The Honourable Mr Justice Ritchie has published judgment following the five-day Tom James -vs – Max Potter case heard in High Court between 15-21 October 2025.
Tom James UK Ltd v Potter [2025] EWHC 2873 (KB) (04 November 2025)
His ruling stated that Tom James, the world’s largest customised tailoring company, headquartered in Tennessee, US was not entitled to enforce a 12-month non-compete clause against its former employee, Max Potter, a young personal tailor who had resigned from the company in May 2025.
Max had previously offered Tom James 12 months non-solicitation and non-dealing covenants in respect of his Restricted Customers, post his employment. However, Tom James and its lawyers Baker & McKenzie rejected this offer and on 10th July 2025 obtained an interim injunction in the High Court to enforce the 12 month non-compete against Max. They then went to trial seeking an Order to enforce this 12-month non-compete. Max Potter contested this position from the outset. Personal tailoring is the only job he knows, and he could not afford to be unemployed for 12 months.
Tom James is the world’s largest manufacturer and retailer of custom clothing and the engine behind some of the world’s most established tailored clothes brands. It has a store in the City and its clientele include high powered barristers, “Magic Circle” solicitors and investment bankers. Its made to measure suits are priced at around £2500.
The non-compete was the subject of the High Court trial and contained neither an area restriction (it was literally worldwide in its application) nor any provision linking the work that Max Potter did, moving forwards, to the work he had done at Tom James. It would have prevented him from working as a delivery driver, for Harrods, for example.
In his Decision, Judge Ritchie decided that Max Potter did not have access to any confidential information other than customer connections, which were dealt with in the undertakings Max Potter offered to the Court, as regards non-solicitation and non-dealing with customers. There was nothing else because Max Potter “was a mid-ranking salesperson who had not yet peaked.” He further decided that there was no evidential basis for the need for a 12-month non-compete, based on Tom James’ customers’ buying cycles.
The Judge was critical of a “one size fits all” restrictive covenant that was applied equally to senior management in London as well as mid-ranking sales personnel. He was also very critical of how the more restrictive 2022 contract was introduced: “Being out of work in his/her field of excellence for 12-months might (and probably would) cause default on his/her mortgage, loss of a house, a car, the ability to care for children and many other things and a very substantial restraint of the ex-employee’s ability to trade. There was no evidence that the Claimant thought about that at all.”
In summary the Judge decided that “The restrictive covenant against competition in the 2022 contract goes further than is reasonably necessary to protect the Claimant’s legitimate business interests and is unenforceable.
I consider that, on the evidence, the duration; the range of businesses being protected; the range of competing businesses and the roles banned were all not reasonably necessary.”
The case ran for five days (15th October to 21st October). Tom James was represented in the High Court by Alice Mayhew KC (Devereux Chambers) and Max Potter by Stefan Brochwicz-Lewinski (9 Chambers, Manchester). Lawyers for Tom James were Baker & McKenzie and for Max Potter, John Hayes, assisted by Zahra Mahmood of Constantine Law. Julia Whyte of Lazuli Law also represented Max Potter between June and July 2025.
According to John Hayes, Managing Partner of Constantine Law, “This was a case of a big US corporate failing to impose a 12-month global non-compete in order to prevent a London worker carrying out his stock in trade.”
Max Potter 27 said, “All I wanted was the opportunity to continue in the trade that I’ve found purpose and passion in. If Tom James had succeeded, it would have set a dangerous precedent whereby large American corporations can control their UK subsidiaries and British employees after they’ve left their employment.”
“I will continue to serve customers and clients in the customised clothing sector in London and beyond.”
John Hayes confirmed that 5-day contested High Court (speedy) trials are relatively rare in the UK. He added, “This case demonstrates that although Tom James has a 24-month restrictive covenant in its US contracts of employment, a 12-month non-compete in its UK contract of employment was, for them, an unenforceable restraint of trade. The company were utterly unable to justify it as a legitimate restriction in the UK.”
“This should be noted by all US employers with overseas workers, particularly in the UK.”