Conditional job offers, a warning for employers
The Employment Appeal Tribunal case of Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems Ltd [2026] EAT 49 is a cautionary tale for employers who rely on the fact that a job offer is conditional to withdraw a job offer without paying notice.
Mr Sita Rama Swamy Kankanalapalli (the applicant) applied for a Project Manager role with Loesche Energy Systems Ltd (the Company).
On 23 September 2022, the Company emailed a formal offer to the applicant proposing a 1 November 2022 start date. The offer stated that employment was “subject to satisfactory references, a right to work check, and a successful six month probation period”. No notice provisions were set out.
Over the following days, the applicant accepted the offer by email, completed a “new starter” form, and supplied referee details and preliminary right to work documents. The Company acknowledged receipt and had already taken steps such as arranging his security pass.
A week later, however, the Company informed the applicant that due to a delay in the underlying contract, the role would now start on 3 January 2023. The applicant queried this, explaining he had already booked flights and asking what pay he would receive in November and December.
On 11 October 2022, the Company withdrew the offer entirely, citing the same project delay. They suggested only a future conditional offer might be possible.
The applicant brought a breach of contract claim, arguing that withdrawing the offer without notice was unlawful.
The Employment Tribunal’s decision
The Employment Tribunal accepted that the applicant had validly accepted the job offer, even though he never returned a signed copy of the letter. However, the Tribunal held that the employment was still conditional on:
- receipt of satisfactory references; and
- completion of an in person right to work check.
Because neither had happened by the time the employer withdrew the offer, the ET concluded no binding contract existed. In the alternative, even if a contract did exist, the ET implied a zero notice term, reasoning that the claimant had not yet worked a month and therefore no notice was required.
The applicant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned the Tribunal’s decision, finding in favour of the applicant.
The judge said that:
1. The Tribunal had incorrectly assumed that three conditions (references, in person right to work checks, and probation) had to be satisfied before a contract came into existence. Looking at the structure of the offer, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found:
- The offer letter set out all main contractual terms (salary, hours, holidays, bonuses, pension, start date).
- The employer had taken steps consistent with employment being imminent (security pass preparation).
- The probation period was itself a condition that could only operate after employment had begun, making it inherently a condition subsequent.
The EAT held that all three conditions were “conditions subsequent”, meaning a binding contract had already been formed, but could later be terminated if the conditions were not met.
2. The ET failed to consider whether the Company was restricted from withdrawing the offer before the deadline for satisfying the conditions, given that:
- the applicant had provided all information he was required to provide for references; but
- the employer had not contacted the referees at all.
3. The ET had incorrectly implied no notice, relying on employment terms disclosed during litigation and on the applicant’s lack of service. The EAT said that:
Reasonable notice must be assessed at the time the contract was formed, not afterwards,
- The company’s internal practices were irrelevant and did not amount to industry custom.
- The applicant was a senior hire, relocating internationally, with a suggested 12 month rental agreement. These factors pointed to a longer notice period.
- Both parties accepted that three months would be reasonable for this role.
The EAT therefore found that a binding contract existed, that all of the conditions the Company had attempted to rely upon were conditions subsequent, that the Company breached the contract by terminating without notice and that the applicant was entitled to three months’ notice. The applicant was not able to recover relocation expenses or holiday pay, as neither entitlement had crystallised before the start date.
Key takeaways for employers
Job offer wording matters
If you intend an offer to be conditional before a contract is formed, this must be expressed clearly and explicitly. Simply stating “subject to” will not be enough.
Don’t withdraw prematurely
If conditions require action by the employer (e.g., contacting referees), withdrawing an offer before the employer has taken those steps risks creating liability.
Reasonable notice may apply even before employment starts
If the offer letter is silent on notice, tribunals may imply a significant notice period, especially for senior roles or where the employee incurs relocation costs.
Probation periods do not automatically reduce notice
Unless explicitly stated, probation does not justify reduced notice before employment begins.
How our experts can help
We regularly support employers with:
- drafting legally robust offer letters and contracts;
- advising on conditional offers, references, and right to work processes;
- managing withdrawals of offers to avoid breach of contract;
- ensuring probation clauses and notice terms are clear, enforceable, and aligned with business needs;
- resolving disputes and reducing litigation risk.
If your business is recruiting, restructuring, or managing senior hires, contact our experts to ensure your documentation, processes, and decisions are defensible and commercially sound.
