The Case
In Tom James UK Ltd v Potter [2025] EWHC 2873, the High Court in England rejected a tailoring company’s attempt to enforce a 12‑month non‑competition clause against a salesperson, a former employee.
Tom James UK, part of a US tailoring group, sells made‑to‑measure suits through travelling consultants. Mr Potter joined the London branch in 2017 and resigned in May 2025 after nearly eight years, citing dissatisfaction with management and product quality. The company alleged he planned to compete and relied on a restrictive covenant introduced in 2022, which lengthened the non‑compete from six months to a full year and removed the previous London‑only restriction, making it apply globally.
The company alleged that Mr Potter had breached his duties of good faith and confidentiality, arguing that his departure threatened client relationships and sensitive business information. It claimed he had access to confidential client lists, pricing data, and tailoring records, and asked the Court to declare that he had broken his contract. No damages were sought; the sole purpose of the claim was to enforce the non‑compete clause designed to keep him out of the industry for twelve months. Mr Potter denied the allegations, maintaining that his role was confined to sales, without managerial responsibilities or access to strategic trade secrets.
The Court’s Findings
The High Court rejected the employer’s arguments, ruling that the non‑compete clause was far too wide. It applied globally, covered every employee regardless of seniority, and even prevented working “in any capacity” for a competitor, from sales to non‑sales roles.
The judge dismissed the claim and held the covenant unenforceable, noting:
- No breach of duty: Mr Potter had not solicited clients, misused information, or acted in bad faith.
- Disproportionate duration: A 12‑month restriction was disproportionate for a mid‑level salesperson with a short notice period.
- Overly broad scope: The clause applied to “any capacity” with a competitor, even non‑sales roles.
- Insufficient justification: The employer failed to justify why 12 months was required, particularly when other staff had joined competitors after shorter periods without issue.
As a result, Mr Potter was free to continue working in the tailoring industry.
Why it matters
Restrictive covenants are lawful in principle, but they will only be enforced if they are reasonable. Courts expect restrictive covenants to protect genuine business interests, such as safeguarding confidential information or preserving customer relationships, and to be no broader than necessary in terms of duration, geography, or scope.
Think of it like tailoring, a bespoke suit must fit the wearer. A covenant must be cut to fit the employee’s responsibilities.
Guidance for Employers
- Use broad restrictions sparingly and reserve them for senior staff with strategic responsibilities or access to sensitive information.
- Limit clauses by geography, role, and duration.
- Match restrictions to notice periods to maintain proportionality.
- Document the rationale when drafting covenants.
- Don’t apply identical clauses to all staff
- Don’t assume courts will enforce long restrictions without evidence.
Conclusion
This judgment is a clear warning against “off‑the‑shelf” non‑compete clauses. Employers should ensure restrictions are proportionate, evidence‑based, and tailored to the individual’s role. Employees, meanwhile, should be aware of how these clauses may affect their future career choices before signing.
Non‑competes can work, but only when they’re a good fit.