Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr J Logo v Payone Gmbh and others people” for it potentially to have the effect of violating the claimant’s dignity. I have concluded that the decision in respect of the effect of the conduct must be set aside. I do not accept that there can only be one answer once the necessary factors are taken into account because the advert that Mr Schrader circulated clearly appears to be debunking the analogy it set up between pure blonde beer and a utopia inhabited by pure white blond people. The “effect” issue shall be remitted to the Employment Tribunal for redetermination, including the time issue in respect of this allegation. The “purpose” issue is not remitted. It was not challenged in the appeal. Disposal 52. I have had regard to the principles in Sinclaire Roche & Temperley v Heard [2004] IRLR. 763. The vast majority of the findings of the Employment Tribunal were not challenged in this appeal. The Employment Tribunal erred in its analysis of a small number of the complaints it had to determine. The issues raised by these complaints were not straightforward. The existing panel can be trusted to deal with the remission in accordance with their judicial oath and to take full account of this judgment. The existing panel will be best placed to deal with the causation issue (issue 15) which as the respondent points out was only assessed in relation to the harassment complaints that were upheld. © EAT 2025 Page 25 [2025] EAT 95