High Court victory for Constantine Law

In a significant High Court ruling, Max Potter, a young personal tailor, successfully contested a non-compete clause against Tom James, the world's largest customised tailoring company. The case, which unfolded over five days from 15th to 21st October, was presided over by The Honourable Mr Justice Ritchie, who ultimately declared the 12-month non-compete clause unenforceable. Potter's resignation from the firm in May 2025 sparked the contentious trial, highlighting the conflict between a large US corporation and a UK employee.

The dispute began when Potter, who has been dedicated to personal tailoring throughout his career, resigned his position. Despite his previous willingness to accept non-solicitation and non-dealing covenants, he found himself embroiled in legal action as Tom James sought to impose a 12-month non-compete clause. After a swift interim injunction obtained by Tom James in July 2025, the case was set for trial, where the stakes were high for Potter.

Justice Ritchie, in his ruling, emphasised that the non-compete clause could not be justified as a legitimate requirement, asserting the importance of fair competition within the industry. “This case was bigger than me. It’s about whether an industry giant can silence those who choose to resign,” Potter articulated, expressing his relief and joy at being able to return to his profession. He further remarked, “If Tom James had succeeded, it would have set a dangerous precedent”.

Potter's legal team from Constantine Law, led by John Hayes, faced significant pressure from Tom James's attorneys, Baker & McKenzie, whose legal costs were vastly greater than those of Potter's team. Hayes stated, “We are delighted by the outcome of this case and truly delighted for Max,” praising Potter’s resilience in the face of financial ruin should he have lost. The case underscores not only the importance of individual rights in the workplace but also signals a warning to large corporations regarding the enforceability of restrictive covenants in the UK.

The ruling exemplifies that despite Tom James's practices in the United States, their restrictive clause was inappropriate and not enforceable under UK law. The esteemed reputation of Constantine Law in this case, coupled with Max Potter’s determination, has paved the way for his return to the tailoring profession, igniting hopes in others who may find themselves similarly constrained by unjust employment contracts.

Copyright & permissions