Tom James UK Ltd v Potter: Non-Compete Clause Held Unenforceable

In Tom James UK Ltd v Potter [2025] EWHC 2873 (KB), the High Court refused to enforce a 12-month worldwide non-compete clause against a London-based personal tailor, finding it went further than reasonably necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests. Mr Justice Ritchie dismissed the claim in its entirety on 4 November 2025, overturned the interim injunction that had been in place since July, and left Max Potter free to return to the customized clothing industry immediately.¹²

The Clause at the Center of the Case

Potter joined Tom James UK in August 2017 as a personal tailor working with clients in London. His original contract contained a six-month non-compete limited to London and to directly competing roles. In 2022 the company issued a new contract that replaced that restriction with a much wider one: no working for any business “in competition” with Tom James, “in any capacity,” anywhere in the world, for 12 months after leaving. Potter told the court he had signed the 2022 contract under pressure following an incident at a US company conference, and the court found he had not been properly informed of how much more onerous the new terms were.¹³

Potter resigned on 22 May 2025, citing what he described as toxic management and concerns over product quality. He was signed off sick with work-related stress at the time. Tom James UK sued in the High Court, seeking full enforcement of the 12-month restriction along with damages for alleged breaches of fidelity, good faith, and confidentiality. Potter offered voluntary undertakings not to solicit or deal with his former customers, and not to poach staff, for 12 months. The company rejected that offer and obtained an interim injunction on 10 July 2025 to enforce the non-compete pending trial.¹⁴

Why the Court Refused to Enforce the Non-Compete

The trial ran from 15 to 21 October 2025 in the King’s Bench Division. Judgment came on 4 November. Justice Ritchie found the clause unreasonable and unenforceable as a restraint of trade for a series of overlapping reasons.

The restriction on role was too broad. Barring Potter from working “in any capacity” at a competing business would have prevented him from taking jobs that had nothing to do with tailoring. The judge illustrated the point by noting the clause would have stopped Potter from working as a delivery driver at Harrods.²

The geographic scope was also wrong. The 2022 clause applied worldwide even though Potter worked only in London. And the 12-month duration was not justified on the evidence. Tom James produced nothing to show its customer buying cycles or commercial needs required a full year, and the court heard that other employees had previously moved to competitors after only six months without harming the company.⁴³

The clause was applied uniformly across the workforce. Tom James used the same covenant for every employee regardless of seniority. The judge found that blanket approach unjustifiable for a mid-ranking salesperson with no strategic role.⁵

Less restrictive protection was already on the table. Potter’s own offered undertakings on non-solicitation and non-dealing were, in the court’s view, sufficient to protect the company’s only real legitimate interest, which was customer connections.⁴

Justice Ritchie considered whether the “blue pencil test” could salvage anything by striking out the worst wording, such as the phrase “or intends to be.” He concluded the clause failed even after severance.⁶

The judgment was also unusually direct about consequences for the worker. Justice Ritchie observed that a 12-month exclusion from a person’s field could cause “default on his/her mortgage, loss of a house, a car, the ability to care for children and many other things,” and that there was “no evidence that the Claimant thought about that at all.”²

The Fidelity and Confidentiality Claims

Tom James also alleged that Potter had spoken to a competitor, failed to complete customer handovers, deliberately run down his sales before leaving, and misused confidential information including client lists, pricing, and tailoring data. The court rejected all of it. Justice Ritchie described the evidence of sales misconduct and improper approaches to competitors as “flimsy, unsupported supposition.” He found that Potter held no confidential information beyond his own customer connections, and that as a mid-ranking salesperson he had no access to strategic or uniquely sensitive business data.¹⁴

Outcome and Current Status

The court awarded no damages to Tom James. The July 2025 interim injunction was overturned, and Potter was declared free to resume working in the customized clothing industry.⁷ Court records show the case marked “Concluded (Stayed)” with a last recorded activity date of 10 March 2026, and there is no indication of an appeal.⁸

How the Ruling Fits with Other Non-Compete Decisions

The ruling does not mean that 12-month non-competes are dead in England. Earlier in 2025, in Dare International Ltd v Soliman, Justice Sheldon upheld a 12-month non-compete against senior energy derivatives traders who had left for a direct competitor. That clause survived because the traders held confidential information with a shelf life longer than 12 months, and one had actively breached his duties during his notice period.⁹ Read together, the two cases turn enforceability on the individual employee’s seniority, role, and genuine access to confidential information, rather than on the length of the restriction alone.

Under English law, non-compete clauses are not governed by statute. They are treated as restraints of trade and presumed void unless the employer can show the restriction protects a legitimate business interest and goes no further than reasonably necessary, assessed at the time the clause was agreed.

Policy Backdrop

The judgment landed during an active policy debate. In May 2023, the previous UK government announced plans to cap non-compete clauses at three months, but no legislation followed. In November 2025 the Department for Business and Trade published a working paper consulting on options ranging from a statutory time limit to an outright ban. The consultation closed in February 2026, and no legislation had been introduced as of mid-2026.¹⁰ For now, enforceability continues to be worked out case by case, on the facts of the employee and the clause in front of the court.

1
ICLG. High Court Strikes Down Tailor’s Year-Long Non-Compete Clause
2
London Business Journal. Max Potter Wins High Court Case Against Custom Clothing Powerhouse
3
Fox Williams. Tom James UK Ltd v Potter: Non-Compete Clauses Under Scrutiny and the Possibility of Reform
4
Chambers. Victory in the High Court: Judgment Published for Tom James UK Limited vs Max Potter
5
Nine Chambers. Restrictive Covenant in Bespoke Tailoring Found Unenforceable
6
Cleaver Fulton Rankin. High Court Decision: Tom James UK v Potter
7
Retail Focus. High Court Rules That World’s Largest Customised Tailoring Company Cannot Enforce a 12-Month Non-Compete Clause Against a UK Former Employee
8
Caseboard. Tom James UK Limited v Potter
9
Blackstone Chambers. 12-Month Non-Compete Upheld: Dare International Ltd v Soliman & Hikmet
10
GOV.UK. Working Paper on Options for Reform of Non-Compete Clauses in Employment Contracts