For guidance on managing job offers, contract formation, or recruitment risk exposure, call us on 0330 123 9501 or complete the form below to speak with one of our experts.
The EAT clarified that an accepted “conditional” job offer may still form a binding contract. Withdrawing it can amount to breach of contract, triggering notice and damages obligations.
27 April 2026
Case Study
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether withdrawing a job offer before the employee’s start date could amount to a breach of contract, even where the offer was described as “conditional”.
In Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems Ltd, the claimant was offered a role as Project Manager. The offer included standard terms such as salary, working hours and start date, along with a £3,000 relocation contribution. It was stated to be conditional on satisfactory references, right to work checks and completion of a six-month probationary period.
The claimant accepted the offer, completed onboarding documentation and made significant relocation arrangements with his wife, including booking international travel and securing long-term accommodation. However, the offer was withdrawn approximately one week before his start date.
Key issues included:
Case Study
The Employment Tribunal initially found that no binding contract existed, concluding that the conditional nature of the offer meant employment had not yet been formed. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed and overturned this decision.
The EAT held that a binding contract had been created once the offer was accepted. It drew an important distinction between conditions precedent (which prevent a contract forming) and conditions subsequent (which allow termination of an already formed contract if not satisfied).
In this case, the conditions were found to be subsequent rather than precedent, meaning the contract existed once accepted, subject to termination if conditions were later not met.
The EAT also considered what notice period applied, as the offer letter was silent on termination. Taking into account the seniority of the role and the relocation requirement, it concluded that a reasonable notice period of three months should be implied.
The employer was therefore liable for breach of contract, with damages awarded accordingly.
This decision is a clear reminder that labelling a job offer as “conditional” does not automatically prevent a contract from being formed once it is accepted. In practice, the legal effect depends on how those conditions are framed and whether they are intended to delay formation of the contract or simply regulate its continuation.
Employers should take a careful and structured approach to offer letters and onboarding arrangements:
The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More
The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More
Employer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More
EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read More