Tom James UK Limited v Max Potter

Tom James UK Limited v Max Potter

The restrictive covenant against competition in clause 19, bullet point 3, of the 2022 contract was unenforceable because its duration, scope, and breadth went further than reasonably necessary to protect the Claimant’s legitimate business interests. The Claimant failed to prove any breach of contract by the Defendant, and the only legitimate confidential information was customer details, already protected by other covenants and undertakings. Severance of offending words did not save the clause.

Parties
Claimant: Tom James UK Limited; Defendant: Max Potter
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Non Compete Clauses, Confidential Information, Post Termination Restrictions, Breach of Contract
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Non Compete Clauses Confidential Information Post Termination Restrictions Breach of Contract

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tom James UK Limited

Claimant

Max Potter

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Defendant breach the terms of his contract relating to good faith, fidelity and confidentiality?
  2. 2 Is clause 19, bullet point 3, of the employment contract (restrictive covenant against competition) enforceable?
  3. 3 Was the restrictive covenant wider than reasonably necessary to protect legitimate business interests?

Ratio Decidendi

The restrictive covenant against competition in clause 19, bullet point 3, of the 2022 contract was unenforceable because its duration, scope, and breadth went further than reasonably necessary to protect the Claimant’s legitimate business interests. The Claimant failed to prove any breach of contract by the Defendant, and the only legitimate confidential information was customer details, already protected by other covenants and undertakings. Severance of offending words did not save the clause.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Interim injunction discharged
  • Undertakings given by Defendant to continue