Introduction to the Case

Thursday 16 October 2025 2:12 pm
 |  Updated: 
Thursday 16 October 2025 2:13 pm

Tailoring giant Tom James launched legal action in London against a former employee, seeking to enforce restrictive covenants and confidentiality obligations.

Tom James Company, the UK entity of its US giant, located on Old Jewry, has launched legal action against a former sales professional, Max Potter.

The company alleged in its claim, seen by City AM, that Potter indicated on March 12, 2025, that he intended to leave the company’s employment to work in a competing business.

The business alleges that during the months leading up to his resignation, Potter delayed or failed to conclude orders, which it argued resulted in a 131 per cent drop in total unit sales year-to-date for that fiscal year.

Additionally, the claimant alleges that in June, Potter solicited or attempted to entice a restricted client, Sidley Austin partner Patrick Kwak, away from Tom James.

Restrictive Covenants and Confidentiality Obligations

The tailor, through law firm Baker McKenzie, is seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant against him along with an order preventing him from breaching that covenant until 23 June 2026.

Potter, a 28-year-old from Enfield, worked in sales, focusing on selling tailored clothing (primarily suits) to people through one-to-one appointments in their homes and offices.

He had signed a revised set of terms and conditions of an Employment Contract dated in September 2022, which contained the 12-month restrictive covenants at issue in the claim.

However, he is defending the case by arguing to the court that the non-compete clause should not be enforced because, as he claims, the accusations of wrongdoing are either unproven or misleading.

Accusations of Wrongdoing

In his statement, Potter told the court: “I have always described the case against me, even through my solicitors at the time, as ‘bullying’ and that is very firmly my view.”

“Tom James UK is trying to crush me, and I am under no illusion that if I lose this case, I will have to declare myself bankrupt: I have no assets or savings of any kind and I won’t be able to pay Baker McKenzie’s substantial legal fees and I will be out of work until late June 2026,” he added.

“All I want is a chance to continue in the trade that I’ve found purpose and passion in,” Potter said in a media statement.

Conflict Between US Corporate Culture and UK Legal Framework

Potter’s lawyer, John Hayes, managing partner of Constantine Law, said: “This case highlights the conflict between a big US corporate culture and the working patterns and legal framework for individuals in the UK.”

“This side of the Atlantic, whilst a company does have the legitimate right to ‘reasonably protect its business’, generally a total restriction on trade is unenforceable and a non-compete must be justified in each case.”

“Max [Potter] is a mid-ranking personal tailor and not a member of management. So it is extraordinary that Tom James is going so far ‘to teach Max a lesson’ for resigning, given many people have resigned from Tom James in London in recent years,” Hayes added.

Portrayal of Tom James on Social Media

The lawyers for Tom James told the court that Potter has portrayed the company as a cartoon villain on social media. The lawyers state “as well as being factually inaccurate, [it] fails to acknowledge the reality of the situation, namely that Max was an experienced salesperson for Tom James, he had freely agreed to post-termination restrictions in his Employment Contract”.

The lawyers alleged Potter had access to confidential business information, including client lists, sales methods, and pricing, and said he was untrustworthy in handling it, casting doubt on his intent to comply with confidentiality and non-solicitation obligations.

Current Status of the Case

The case is currently at an injunction hearing at the High Court, which kicked off on Wednesday and set to conclude on next Tuesday.

Tom James Company was contacted for a comment.

Conclusion

The case of Tom James vs Max Potter is a complex one, involving issues of restrictive covenants, confidentiality obligations, and the conflict between US corporate culture and UK legal framework. The outcome of the case will have significant implications for the parties involved and may set a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the case about?

The case is about Tom James, a tailoring giant, suing its former employee, Max Potter, for allegedly breaching restrictive covenants and confidentiality obligations.

What are restrictive covenants?

Restrictive covenants are clauses in an employment contract that restrict an employee’s ability to work for a competitor or start their own business after leaving their current employer.

Why is Tom James suing Max Potter?

Tom James is suing Max Potter for allegedly breaching his restrictive covenants and confidentiality obligations, including delaying or failing to conclude orders and soliciting a restricted client.

What is the current status of the case?

The case is currently at an injunction hearing at the High Court, which kicked off on Wednesday and set to conclude on next Tuesday.

What are the implications of the case?

The outcome of the case will have significant implications for the parties involved and may set a precedent for similar cases in the future, particularly in regards to the enforceability of restrictive covenants and confidentiality obligations in the UK.