Breach of contract: did the withdrawal of a job offer entitle candidate to notice pay?

Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems Ltd [2026] EAT 49

Offers of employment are commonly subject to conditions, such as the receipt of satisfactory references. Once any conditions have been satisfied, provided the employee has accepted the offer, an employment contract will (or may) be in existence. The EAT has recently held that the withdrawal of a conditional job offer amounted to a breach of contract, entitling the candidate to notice pay.

K’s application for a project manager role was successful and the employer sent him an offer letter by email. This email said that the job offer was “subject to receipt of satisfactory references, a right to work check and a successful six-month probation period” and proposed a start date of 1 November 2022. K responded that he accepted the offer and promised to sign and return the documents in few days. K then returned the requested forms, including copies of documents confirming his right to work in the UK.

In early October 2022, around three weeks before K was due to start work, the employer told K that it wished to delay his start date to 3 January 2023 (a delay of two months). K replied saying that he had already booked flights to the UK for himself and his wife and asked what pay he would receive for November / December. A few days later, the employer emailed K confirming that it was no longer able to offer him the contract for the position of project manager commencing 1 November 2022. The employer’s reason for withdrawing K’s job offer did not relate to K’s failure to meet the terms of his conditional job offer. Rather, it withdrew the job offer for its own, completely unrelated, reasons.

K brought a breach of contract claim, arguing that the job offer had been withdrawn without giving him appropriate notice. The employment tribunal initially dismissed K’s claim. The tribunal accepted that K had accepted the job offer (by his email on 26 September 2022) but went on to hold that this job offer was subject to two conditions (the receipt of satisfactory references and a right to work check) and that neither condition had been satisfied. In the alternative, had there been a binding contract, the tribunal concluded that there was an implied term that, as K had less than one month's service, the employer would not have been required by law to give K any notice, and they had in fact given him a week's notice.

The EAT upheld K’s appeal and set aside the tribunal's decision. Firstly, the EAT held that the conditions in a job offer letter (satisfactory references, right to work check, and completion of probationary period) were ‘conditions subsequent’ (meaning they only applied after the contract began) rather than being ‘conditions precedent’ (meaning they had to be satisfied before a binding contract of employment had been formed). The three conditions in the offer letter had been grouped together, with no attempt to differentiate between them as ‘conditions precedent’. Further, the third condition was clearly a condition subsequent, as the probationary period could only be satisfied post-commencement of the contract. Secondly, the tribunal had erred in its conclusion that there was no implied term as to notice. The EAT implied a term for reasonable notice, which in this case would have been three months’ notice, and held that the employer was in breach of contract by terminating K’s contract without that reasonable notice.

The take home message is that, as withdrawing a job offer can sometimes amount to a breach of contract (as it did in this case), employers should make sure to carefully draft conditional job offers to clarify when the offer may be withdrawn if conditions are not met, differentiating between pre-conditions (such as references) and conditions which must be met after the contract commences (such as completing a probationary period).