Mr Rian Wispy v Quintessentially (UK) Limited — 2022

Mr Wispy alleged that Quintessentially (UK) Limited breached contract by withdrawing an offer of employment for Interim Group Reporting Manager. The tribunal found that the 10 November 2021 offer letter made the offer conditional upon receipt of satisfactory pre-employment checks and production of original right-to-work evidence. It held that the condition was sufficiently clear, and that the respondent was entitled to treat the offer as conditional in the event the condition was not satisfied, referring to Stubbes v Trower, Still and Keeling. The tribunal also noted that the claimant understood the offer to be subject to checks that the company would deem necessary.

The tribunal found that the pre-employment checks were not satisfactory to the respondent. It accepted that the respondent had requested references, received a personal reference but not timely responses from the two professional referees, and took into account references, lack of references and open source searches. Applying the subjective approach to references from Wishart v National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux Ltd, it concluded that the checks were not satisfactory to the respondent. As the condition precedent was not satisfied, the contract did not take effect and the withdrawal of the offer was not a breach of contract, so the claim was dismissed and loss did not need to be assessed.

On costs, the tribunal held that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success for the purposes of rule 76. It referred to Opalkova v Acquire Care Ltd and Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and others, found that the claimant knew or ought to have known by 19 January 2022 that the claim had no prospect of success, and made a costs order in principle for the respondent's costs incurred after that date. The amount of costs was not determined at the hearing and was left to be agreed or determined by written submissions or a further hearing.