30th April 2026

Employment Appeals Tribunal Gives Guidance On Conditional Offers Of Employment

It is widely accepted that an individual’s contract of employment commences on the employee’s first day of work. In practice, offers of employment are usually made by a letter or an email setting out the key terms of the job role and stating that the offer is subject to conditions such as references or right to work checks.

A recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal acted as a reminder for employees that this assumption is wrong and a contract of employment may start long before the employee’s first day of work.

Case study: Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems

Facts of the case

Mr Kankanalapalli (the Claimant), an overseas candidate, was offered a Project Manager role by Loesche Energy Systems (the Respondent), having followed a successful interview process. On 23 September 2022, the Respondent made a written offer with a proposed start date of 1 November 2022, subject to satisfactory references, a right to work check and successful completion of a six-month probationary period. The employer also agreed to contribute £3,000 to the relocation. On 26 September 2022, the Claimant accepted the job offer and emailed to the Respondent all required documentation with originals to be provided on the start date. The Claimant, as part of the relocation, also booked flights to the UK for himself and his wife.

On 11th October 2022, the Respondent informed the Claimant that it was no longer able to offer the contract due to project delay. Following this, the Claimant took a claim to the Employment Tribunal (ET), to which the ET stated that the job offer remained conditional when it was withdrawn as the original documents had not yet been received. Therefore, the ET dismissed the claim, so the Claimant appealed.

Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision

A key point for the EAT to consider was whether the conditions that had been specified by the Respondent prevented any contract from existing until the conditions were satisfied (conditions precedent), or whether the conditions allowed for a contract to exist but permitted termination if the conditions could not be met (conditions subsequent).

Due to the inclusion of a 6-month probationary period, the EAT ruled that these were conditions subsequent and as a result a contract had formed. The EAT stated that this probation period can only start once employment has commenced. Therefore, it would be fair to state that, as the conditions had been grouped together, these conditions could only be met once employment had commenced and, as a result, a binding contract had been formed upon acceptance of the offer.

As the contract was silent on notice, the EAT held that a term of reasonable notice must be given. Given the seniority of the role and relocation, the EAT implied a three-month notice period, to which they ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant.

What are the lessons to be learned?

The key takeaway from this case study is that describing an offer of employment as ‘conditional’ does not automatically prevent a contract from forming, especially if conditions of that contract of employment list requirements that can only be completed once in employment, such as a probation clause.

If the employer wants to be clear with the applicant that no contract will exist until all requirements have been met, the offer letter must explicitly state that. Employers can achieve this by being careful when drafting letters and being completely clear as to when the contract will come into effect.