Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr J Logo v Payone Gmbh and others Therefore if it is held that a respondent will suffer substantial prejudice if a time limit greater than three months is applied that would be likely to be a good reason not to extend time and therefore not to determine the complaint. Yet in this case the Employment Tribunal decided that it could properly determine the complaints but then refused to extend time in substantial part because of prejudice that it suggested resulted from the delay. I have concluded that there was no real relevant prejudice identified by the Employment Tribunal and that its analysis was perverse. 43. The respondent admitted that the black face incident had occurred and that it constituted harassment as a result of the effect it had on the claimant. The Employment Tribunal rejected the suggestion that Miss Ganswindt’s conduct had that purpose and so her limited recollection did not cause any relevant prejudice to the respondent. 44. The Employment Tribunal did not expressly identify and take into account the prejudice to the claimant. There was obvious significant prejudice to the claimant in being denied a remedy for harassment that the Employment Tribunal found as a fact had occurred. The Employment Tribunal took account of the claimant’s delay in making a claim. The Employment Tribunal did not decide that the claimant did not genuinely fear for his job if he brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal but decided that there was “no evidence that he had any basis for such a fear” and that it could not “objectively be demonstrated to be a reasonable fear” and so it was not persuaded that “the claimant has put forward a convincing explanation for the delay”. None of these were requirements for an extension of time. The determination of the Employment Tribunal on the time limit issue in respect of the black face incident took account of an irrelevant factor, the supposed significant prejudice to the respondent, failed to take account of a relevant factor, the prejudice to the claimant and overall on the analysis of the Employment Tribunal fell outside the very wide ambit within which different views may reasonably be taken about what is just and equitable. 45. In respect of the comment at the meal on 19 June 2019 the Employment Tribunal also felt able to make a clear finding of fact that an extremely offensive comment was made and that it had the effect of violating the dignity of the claimant. Yet it went on to hold that a significant reason for © EAT 2025 Page 19 [2025] EAT 95