Mr Sita Rama Swamy Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems Limited — 2023

Mr Kankanalapalli applied for a project manager role and was sent a conditional offer on 23 September 2022. The tribunal found that the offer was subject only to two express conditions in the offer letter: receipt of satisfactory references and completion of a right to work check. It did not accept that the offer was also conditional on notice to proceed being obtained for the underlying contract, because that was not stated in the offer letter.

The tribunal found that Mr Kankanalapalli accepted the conditional offer by his email of 26 September 2022, even though he did not return the signed offer letter. However, neither of the express conditions had been satisfied by 11 October 2022 when the respondent withdrew the offer. The respondent had not received the references themselves, only referee contact details, and it had not completed the right to work checks in the manner recommended by the Home Office, including inspection of original documents.

Because the conditions were still unsatisfied when the offer was withdrawn, the tribunal held that the offer remained conditional and there was no binding contract between the parties. The breach of contract claim therefore failed and was dismissed. In the alternative, if there had been a binding contract, the tribunal said the express offer letter contained no notice term, and it would have implied a term that no notice was required because the claimant would have had less than one month’s service, consistent with section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the respondent’s usual terms.