Loesche Energy Systems Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant appealed against the ET's decision to dismiss his claim for breach of contract. The ET had found the offer was subject to conditions that were not satisfied before the respondent withdrew the offer. The EAT found the ET erred in its construction of the conditions, and that reasonable notice of 3 months should be implied. The respondent was in breach by terminating the contract without reasonable notice.

The EAT found the employment tribunal had erred in its construction of the contractual conditions precedent to the offer. The EAT determined that reasonable notice of three months should be implied into the contract, and the respondent was in breach by terminating without providing that notice.

• •whether the contractual conditions were precedent or subsequent
• •whether reasonable notice should be implied

Judgment approved by the Court Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems Ltd © EAT 2026 Page 1 [2026] EAT 49 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 49 Case No: EA-2023-000727-AT EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 20 January 2026 Before: JUDGE SUSAN WALKER KC (HON.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : MR SITA RAMA SWAMY KANKANALAPALLI Appellant - and - LOESCHE ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr A Kapoor, Solicitor-Advocate for the Appellant Mr G Ridgeway, Employment Law Advocate for the Respondent Hearing date: 20 January 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the Court Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems Ltd © EAT 2026 Page 2 [2026] EAT 49 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 …