Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr J Logo v Payone Gmbh and others refusing to apply a time limit in excess of three months was that Mr Risch’s memory was adversely affected by the passage of time. However, Mr Risch’s memory was not affected in a material sense because once reminded of the comment he recalled the context. Memory difficulty might have been relevant to the question of his purpose but once it was accepted that the highly offensive comment was made the limits of his recollection did not create any relevant prejudice in deciding whether the conduct had the effect of violating the claimant’s dignity. The Employment Tribunal did not expressly consider the prejudice to the claimant of receiving no remedy for harassment that was found to have occurred as a matter of fact and the Employment Tribunal adopted the approach that the claimant had to establish an objectively sound reason for delaying in bringing his claim. The decision of the Employment Tribunal on this issue cannot be supported for essentially the same reasons as the black face incident. 46. I have not concluded that there can only be one correct analysis of whether a time limit in excess of three months should be applied and so this issue will have to be remitted for redetermination. Posting the Pure Blond advert on WhatsApp - 19 December 2020 47. The Employment Tribunal made the following findings of fact: WhatsApp messages 3 342. On around 19 December 2020, Stefan Schrader, the second respondent, posted a video on the WhatsApp group of an advertisement for a brand of beer called Pure Blonde. … The claimant accepted the description put to him by counsel for the respondents who described the advert as depicting a utopia of blonde people who make Pure Blonde beer who have been splattered in mud at the end of the advertisement. … This image shows a group of young, toned, blonde people apparently waving. The front row have what appeared to be mud splats on them and one is holding a bottle of beer. The claimant stated that the people had been ‘stained’ with mud but accepted that a lorry that turned up to collect the beer, drove away and splattered mud on them. He agreed that the lorry driver opened a bottle of beer on leaving using a bird that was flying past him. The claimant did not agree that it was meant to be a funny advert. 343. The respondent’s case is that the hair colour of the people in the advertisement is a play on that fact that it is a blonde beer. The claimant stated that he did not see it as a joke but was offended by the pure blonde utopia depicted. In para.127 and following of his witness statement, the claimant explained his concern as being that the advert appeared to promote an all-white utopia without © EAT 2025 Page 20 [2025] EAT 95