When US non-competes collide with UK law

We’re not in Kansas anymore,” said Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz (1939). That line echoed in London’s High Court in October when Mr Justice Ritchie ruled that Tom James, the world’s largest personalised tailoring company, could not enforce a 12-month non-compete against former UK employee Max Potter. The decision shows how lengthy restrictive covenants contained in US employment contracts rarely translate into enforceable UK covenants, whatever American senior management may wish.

Tom James is known for its hard-line approach to non-competes. Its US contracts include 24-month restrictions, and it routinely instructs Baker McKenzie to pursue ex-employees who set up in competition. Judge Ritchie criticised the firm’s conduct, noting it hand-delivered a letter of claim to Potter’s partner on a Sunday—just two days after he resigned. The company’s campaign against Potter lasted five months and cost them more than £600,000 in legal fees, which are now irrecoverable.

Max Potter, 28, had worked for Tom James UK for almost eight years as a visiting tailor, selling £2,500 bespoke suits, shoes and ties to senior professionals in London’s financial and legal sectors. While small in the UK, Tom James is a US giant, headquartered in Tennessee with a global turnover of about $500 million.

In 2022, following a pay review, Tom James UK introduced expanded restrictive covenants for its London salesforce: with 12-month non-solicitation, non-dealing, and non-poaching covenants, plus a 12-month global non-compete. Max Potter previously had six months non-compete. US management said they wanted “standardisation,” reasoning that if 24 months was reasonable in America, 12 months must be reasonable in the UK.

However, the non-compete clause in the UK contracts contained neither a geographical limit nor any provision linking it to the work Potter did. It could have barred him from any role in any competing business worldwide—even, hypothetically. It would have prevented Max from working as a delivery driver, for Harrods, for example or even, conceivably, serving in a shop in Kansas City selling competitive products. The Judge decided that this was manifestly excessive in its scope. 

When Potter resigned in May 2022 with no job to go to, he offered Court Undertakings to honour 12-month non-solicitation and non-dealing covenants regarding his clients. Tom James rejected this and sued, obtaining an interim injunction in July 2025 to enforce the 12 month non-compete.

A “speedy trial” was ordered to decide whether the clause was a lawful restraint of trade and whether the injunction should stand and also to decide whether Max Potter had acted in breach of his employment duties. Most employees would have caved in at this stage, but Potter—represented by Constantine Law and Stefan Lewinski—defended the claim.

Tom James argued that because 24-month restrictions were standard in its US contracts, 12 months in the UK was reasonable. It claimed the restriction protected customer connections and that Potter, having signed the contract, should be held to it. Under UK law, however, the position is more nuanced. Restrictive covenants amount to unenforceable restraints of trade unless the employer proves they go no further than is reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest. The burden of proof lay with Tom James, and it failed to show it.