In the case of Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems Ltd, the claimant was offered a role as a project manager, subject to satisfactory references, a right to work check and a six-month probation period. He accepted the offer by email and began taking steps in preparation for the role, including providing documentation and making arrangements to relocate.
Before the proposed start date, the employer withdrew the offer due to a delay in the underlying project. The claimant brought a breach of contract claim, arguing that the offer had been accepted and could not be withdrawn without notice.
The Employment Tribunal found that, although the offer had been accepted, the conditions had not been satisfied. It treated those conditions as preventing a binding contract from arising and, in any event, concluded that no notice was required.
The EAT allowed the appeal and substituted its own decision.
A key issue was whether the conditions attached to the offer were conditions precedent (preventing a contract from forming until satisfied) or conditions subsequent (allowing a contract to exist but capable of being terminated if not met). The EAT held that this is a matter of construction in each case and that the Tribunal had erred by failing to engage with the claimant’s argument on this point.
On the facts, the EAT concluded that the conditions were conditions subsequent. The offer letter set out all key terms, and the inclusion of a probationary period...
By Olivia GomesMay 18, 20260 comments WASHINGTON — A new analysis published by The Atlantic argues that election denial movements once viewed as politically fringe are becoming increasingly embedd...