![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||||||||||
|
THE FUTURE OF BAILII DEPENDS ON USERS LIKE YOU
If you want to be able to use BAILII in the future, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law.
Your donation, no matter the size, will help BAILII maintain the legal databases that you and many other users rely on. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
| ||||||||||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems Ltd (Breach of Contract) [2026] EAT 49 (20 January 2026) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2026/49.html Cite as: [2026] EAT 49 |
||||||||||
[New search]
[Context
]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
MR SITA RAMA SWAMY KANKANALAPALLI |
Appellant |
|
| - and - |
||
| LOESCHE ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED |
Respondent |
____________________
Mr G Ridgeway, Employment Law Advocate for the Respondent
Hearing date: 20 January 2026
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
SUMMARY
Breach of Contract
The ET had not considered (or if they had considered, did not explain why they discounted) the claimant's submissions (i) that the contractual conditions were subsequent and not precedent and/or (ii) that the conditions of the offer imposed a degree of obligation on both parties such that the respondent did not have an unrestricted right to withdraw from it.
Their conclusion on an implied term as to notice took into account matters that were not in the knowledge of both parties at the time of entering into the contract.
The decision was set aside and the EAT, at the request of the parties, considered the matter itself, and concluded that:
(i) the contractual conditions were, on the facts as found by the ET, conditions subsequent;
(ii) reasonable notice in the particular circumstances of the case would have been three months and a term should be implied to that effect; and
(iii) the respondent was in breach of contract by terminating the contract without reasonable notice.
JUDGE SUSAN WALKER KC (HON.)
Summary of the relevant facts
"I am pleased to offer you the position of project manager for Loesche Systems Limited. This is subject to receipt of satisfactory references, a right to work check and a successful six month probation period which will commence on your start date. The contract of employment will be forwarded to you before your first day."
The letter did not provide any details about the notice period required to terminate the employment.
"As a result we, are no longer able to offer you the contract for the position of project manager commencing 1 November 2022."
"We are able to consider a conditional offer based on the notice to proceed. However, we understand if you no longer wish to be considered."
Decision of the ET
Grounds of appeal
Ground 1:
Ground 1 – decision
Ground 2.
• an unrestricted right of withdrawal
• a restricted right of withdrawal
• a duty not to prevent the occurrence of the event
• a duty of reasonable diligence to bring about the event.
Ground 2- decision
Grounds 3 & 4
Grounds 3 & 4 - Decision
Disposal
Note: a judgment in those terms was issued to the parties separately following the hearing.