Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr J Logo v Payone Gmbh and others 255. We accept that words alleged were probably used. Mr Risch clearly struggled with his recall of this event. His initial recollection had simply been that nothing happened. Naturally, we expect people to come to Tribunal and, in the words of the oath or affirmation, tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” but we think it is to his credit that he volunteered this further information. His explanation for late recall is plausible. The first time a comment it heard is the most memorable occasion – for the claimant, that would have been at this event, for Mr Risch it would have been when the story was first relayed to him. If a long passage of time occurs before the individual has to remember the occasion, then their recall is likely to be worse, in our experience. We think that the event in June 2019 was therefore more likely to be memorable to the claimant than to Mr Risch. It is not clear, even now, how much Mr Risch remembers himself rather than accepts on the basis of being reminded by the colleague. 256. Given the claimant’s modest German language skills, it is more likely than not that this comment was explained in English as well as in German. There is a coincidence in the claimant’s account and the words Mr Risch accepts he used in German (although he was not clear about their use in English). It is such a striking and indeed shocking comment that it is unlikely that this was invented by the claimant. However, it appears that, as relayed to the claimant, it was deprived of the context – namely a story about what a colleague had experienced. 257. We think it is the sort of situation were although the adjective black to describe the man in the offensive material does not appear to have been an important part of the story that cannot reasonably have been apparent to the claimant. Furthermore, we think it probable that an adjective about colour would not have be used if the participant in the image was white. There can be no doubt that what was described as likely to offend. We accept that the claimant was offended and felt demeaned as a black person. It was reasonable for that comment to have that effect. 258. This incident is not referred to in the reasons for resignation given in ... . We consider that the allegation that this will stay with him for the rest of his life is overstated as he didn’t complain about it when he took the opportunity to complain about other instances. 259. We consider the claimants evidence at para.165 that Mr Risch laughed. We think the claimant inferred that a joke had been told from the laughter, but that description is not necessarily inconsistent with the R1 witnesses denying that they were telling a joke. People can laugh for more than one reason and Mr Risch now giving evidence long after the event is doing his best, but he is hampered by the difficulty of recalling it. We accept that there probably was laughter. [emphasis added] 34. The Employment Tribunal analysed the complaint: 425. For reasons we explain at para.256 above we accept that a comment about a black man fucking an animal probably was made at a dinner in around June 2019. Given the claimant’s modest German it is more likely than not that the comment was explained in English as well as in German. He could quite easily (and reasonably) have been offended by this comment and felt demeaned as a black man hearing such a very offensive comment. As we explain above we think that it is hard to understand why the word black was included in the narrative because it is not at all a relevant detail for the purpose of the description of the © EAT 2025 Page 15 [2025] EAT 95