Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr J Logo v Payone Gmbh and others that he should be able to bring an Employment Tribunal claim. 469. The arguments on whether it is [just and equitable] to extend time raised by the claimant as set out in CSUB para 34 and following. Amongst these the claimant states he was fearful of losing employment by retaliatory action but there has been no evidence of the risk of that being at all likely to come to pass and we do not consider it to objectively be demonstrated to be a reasonable fear. 470. Overall, we do not consider it to be [just and equitable] to extend time for these two claims and the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider them. The claimant does not succeed on any heads. [emphasis added] The Time Appeal 40. The claimant asserts: 7. As regards whether or not to extend time for the otherwise successful allegations the tribunal failed to apply the correct law: a. Failed to undertake the necessary balancing exercise b. Failed to identify and take into account the prejudice to the Claimant c. Erred in its identification of prejudice to the Respondent; and/or d. Operated on the wrong basis that the Appellant had to satisfy the ET that there was a good reason for his not bringing a claim sooner 41. The Employment Tribunal briefly directed itself as to the relevant law. The Employment Tribunal referred to Robertson v Bexley and stated that “time limits are strict and are meant to be adhered to” but did not do so out of context because it was noted that the discretion is “broad” and that the Employment Tribunal should consider the “balance of hardship” of allowing or refusing an extension of time. The Employment Tribunal noted that an extension does not have to be “refused in every case where there is no evidence why the claim form had not been submitted sooner”. The Employment Tribunal noted that where there are a number of complaints “the forensic prejudice may not be the same in relation to all of them”. Overall I have concluded that the Employment Tribunal did not misdirect itself in law. Accordingly, I have reminded myself of the statement in Greenberg that I should be “slow to conclude that it has not applied those principles”. 42. Nonetheless I have concluded that the Employment Tribunal erred in law. The Employment Tribunal adopted an illogical approach to this limited part of its decision making. Section 123 EQA provides that proceedings on a complaint “may not be brought” after the end of the time limit. © EAT 2025 Page 18 [2025] EAT 95