Case 6018681/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kollis Osbourne v Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust FINAL HEARING — 2026
- Case reference
- 6018681/2025
- Decision date
- 20 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lloyd
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kollis Osbourne
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was for breach of contract arising from the respondent's withdrawal of a conditional offer of employment. The offer letter stated that starting arrangements and the contract of employment would only be confirmed once pre-employment checks, including employment history and reference checks, had been satisfactorily completed.
The tribunal found that the respondent had concerns after verbal discussions with the claimant's former managers about his previous work for the respondent. It accepted that the respondent genuinely believed the information provided was not satisfactory and that the respondent could rely on verbal information when conducting its pre-employment checks.
The tribunal concluded that the conditional offer had not crystallised into a binding contract because one of the conditions had not been satisfied. As there was no contract between the parties, the issues of breach and loss did not arise, and the claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found there was no concluded contract of employment because the conditional offer depended on satisfactory pre-employment checks, including references, and that condition had not been satisfied. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Wishart v National Association of CAB [1990] IRLF 393
- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 41 of the Tribunal Rules 2024
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.