Tom James UK Ltd v Potter [2025] EWHC 2873 (KB) (04 November 2025)

Tom James UK Ltd v Potter [2025] EWHC 2873 (KB) (04 November 2025)

The restrictive covenant against competition (RCC) in clause 19 was unenforceable because it was broader than necessary to protect the Claimant's legitimate business interests, both in duration and geographic scope, and because the Claimant's interests were already adequately protected by non-solicitation and non-dealing covenants. The Defendant did not breach his contractual duties of good faith, fidelity, or confidentiality, as the evidence did not support the Claimant's allegations, and all confidential information was returned. The RCC was void for being unreasonable and disproportionate.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2873 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Tom James UK Limited; Defendant: Max Potter
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Employment/contract Claim / Final Judgment After Expedited Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Non Compete Clauses, Confidential Information, Employee Duties, Enforceability of Employment Terms
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Non Compete Clauses Confidential Information Employee Duties Enforceability of Employment Terms

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tom James UK Limited

Claimant

Max Potter

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment/contract Claim / Final Judgment After Expedited Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Defendant breach contractual duties of good faith, fidelity, and confidentiality?
  2. 2 Is the restrictive covenant against competition (RCC) in clause 19 of the employment contract enforceable?

Ratio Decidendi

The restrictive covenant against competition (RCC) in clause 19 was unenforceable because it was broader than necessary to protect the Claimant's legitimate business interests, both in duration and geographic scope, and because the Claimant's interests were already adequately protected by non-solicitation and non-dealing covenants. The Defendant did not breach his contractual duties of good faith, fidelity, or confidentiality, as the evidence did not support the Claimant's allegations, and all confidential information was returned. The RCC was void for being unreasonable and disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that the Defendant did not breach his contract of employment.
  • Declaration that the restrictive covenant against competition in clause 19 is unenforceable.