High Court rejects Square Mile Tom James’ legal case against former employee
The High Court has dismissed a lawsuit to enforce restrictive covenants and confidentiality obligations against a former employee of giant Tom James in the Square Mile.
Tom James is the world’s largest manufacturer and retailer of customised clothing, and in the City, where some suits are priced at around £2,500, it tailors to working professionals.
Tom James Company, the UK entity of its US giant, located on Old Jewry, sought legal action against a former sales professional, Max Potter, which went to trial last month.
The businesses sought to enforce restrictive covenants, specifically a non-compete clause, in Potter’s employment contract after he resigned, as he was suspected of intending to work for a competitor.
One of the claims against him included allegations that he solicited or attempted to entice a restricted client, Sidley Austin partner Patrick Kwak, away from Tom James.
Last month, 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.”
His lawyer, John Hayes, managing partner of Constantine Law, stated that “this case highlights the conflict between a big US corporate culture and the working patterns and legal framework for individuals in the UK.”
The court’s rejection
On Tuesday, Mr Justice Ritchie handed down a ruling, dismissing the entire claim.
The court declared that Potter had not breached the terms of his employment contract, and as a result, the restrictive covenant in the contract was deemed unenforceable.
Commenting on the ruling, Hayes said: “This was a case of a big US corporate failing to impose a 12-month global non-compete in order to prevent a London worker carrying out his stock in trade.”
Potter added, “What I wanted was the opportunity to continue in the trade that I’ve found purpose and passion in.”
“If Tom James had succeeded, it would have set a dangerous precedent whereby large American corporations could control their UK subsidiaries and British employees after they had left their employment.”