High Court rules against US retail giant

In a significant ruling, the Honourable Mr Justice Ritchie has published his judgment in the High Court case of Tom James UK Ltd v Max Potter, following a five-day trial. The case, which was heard between 15-21 October 2025, centred around the enforcement of a 12-month non-compete clause against Max Potter, a former employee of Tom James, the world's largest customised tailoring company, headquartered in Tennessee, US. The judge stated that the clause “went further than is reasonably necessary to protect the Claimant's legitimate business interests and is unenforceable.”

Max Potter had resigned from Tom James in May 2025 and had previously proposed a set of 12-month non-solicitation and non-dealing covenants relating to his restricted customers, which Tom James rejected. Subsequently, on 10th July 2025, the company secured an interim injunction to enforce the non-compete clause against him. Potter contested the claim, arguing that personal tailoring was his only profession and that being unemployed for a year was untenable.

Tom James, which caters to a high-profile clientele including barristers and investment bankers, aimed to bar Potter not just from competing directly, but in a manner that could even affect unrelated employment, as the non-compete clause lacked any geographical limitation and could prevent him from taking on any role, such as working as a delivery driver for high-end retailers like Harrods.

Judge Ritchie found that Potter did not possess access to any significant confidential information beyond customer connections, which he agreed to undertake in terms of non-solicitation. He remarked that Potter “was a mid-ranking salesperson who had not yet peaked,” and noted the lack of evidence supporting a need for a lengthy non-compete clause, especially given the typical buying cycles of Tom James’ clientele.

Critically, the judge scrutinised the application of a “one size fits all” approach to restrictive covenants, particularly the imposition of a 12-month restriction on a mid-ranking sales employee, whilst similar clauses applied to senior management. He emphasised the potential personal and financial repercussions of such a restraint, stating, “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.”

Ultimately, Ritchie concluded that the restrictive covenant was “not reasonably necessary” for Tom James to protect its business interests. The ruling serves as a critical reference point for US employers with workers in the UK, reinforcing that expansive non-compete clauses may not hold up in legal scrutiny.

Following the judgement, John Hayes, Managing Partner of Constantine Law, highlighted the broader implications for multinational companies, stating, “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, reflecting on the outcome, said, “All I wanted was the opportunity to continue in the trade that I've found purpose and passion in.” He further asserted that a ruling in Tom James’ favour would have set a troubling precedent that allowed large American corporations to control the careers of UK employees long after their employment ended. As he noted, “I will continue to serve customers and clients in the customised clothing sector in London and beyond.”

Lawyers for both parties included respected barristers from various chambers, with John Hayes reiterating that the ruling emphasises the necessity for critical scrutiny of restrictive covenants in employment contracts across jurisdictions.