A High Court case involving a young personal tailor and the world’s largest customised tailoring company, headquartered in Tennessee, US has now concluded. In Tom James v Max Potter, Judge Justice Ritchie ruled that Tom James was not entitled to enforce a 12-month non-compete clause against its former employee, Max Potter, 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 termination. 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. They then went to trial seeking to obtain an Order to keep Max out of the market (and not working) for a year.
Max and Constantine Law have now overturned this interim decision and succeeded at a full trial. Justice Ritchie, ruling in favour of Max Potter has stated that the written Judgment will be handed down in two weeks.
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. This was a “David -vs- Goliath Battle” with Baker & McKenzie’s legal costs more than three times those of Constantine Law.
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.
28-year-old personal tailor Max Potter had resigned from Tom James UK on 22nd May 2025. He contested the 12 month non-compete from the outset. Personal tailoring is the only job he knows and he called some powerful witnesses, in support of his position.
This was very much a case of a big US corporate seeking to impose its wealth and legal might to prevent a London worker carrying out his stock in trade.
Max Potter said, “This case was bigger than me. It’s about whether an industry giant can silence those who choose to resign and all I wanted was the opportunity to continue in the trade that I’ve found purpose and passion in. I will continue to serve customers and clients in the customised clothing sector in London and beyond. 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.”
Constantine Law, lawyers for Max Potter confirmed that 5-day contested High Court (speedy) trials are relatively rare. This case demonstrates that just because Tom James has a 24-month restrictive covenant in its US contracts of employment, a 12-month non-compete in their UK contract of employment is an unenforceable restraint of trade because it could not be justified as legitimate by the company.
John Hayes, Managing Partner of Constantine Law said, “We delighted by the outcome of this case and truly delighted for Max. He was a fearless litigant, and he faced bankruptcy (and worse) if he lost.
We took one look at the non-compete in April 2025 and thought it was unenforceable. It is good to be vindicated in this judgement in what was a hard-fought case.
Tom James and Baker & McKenzie put maximum pressure on Max and Constantine Law to try to impose their will, but we held our ground, and we have succeeded. We are truly grateful to the professionalism and courtesy shown to Max by the High Court. It is wonderful that Max can now work in his chosen profession, and I’ll be buying a suit from him in the weeks to come…”.
