Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr J Logo v Payone Gmbh and others paragraph 463 should be amended: … A claim based on LOI.4m, should have been presented around on 10 September 2019 at the latest – if one assumes in the claimant’s favour that the incident happened on 11 June 20189 (see the claimant’s statement at para. 163). In order to be in time, he should therefore have contacted ACAS or presented no later than 10 September 2019. He contacted ACAS on 6 February 2021 and Day B was on 18 February 2021 and therefore the claim based on this allegation is approximately 18 months late 4 months late. The time determination 39. The Employment Tribunal went on: 464. We consider that the respondent has suffered prejudice in relation to LOI.4.m because the way in which Mr Risch’s evidence emerged itself demonstrates that his memory was adversely affected by the passage of time. He had no recollection of the meal or conversation at all and only was able to comment upon the allegation having consulted someone else. It is entirely possible that his recollection would have been more extensive had the allegation been made in full detail in good time. 465. So far as LOI.4.a is concerned the conduct complained of is not in dispute. The respondent advisedly accepted that it met the statutory test for harassment, subject to jurisdiction. Furthermore, there is some photographic evidence to be relied on. Mrs Fischer’s evidence about this event changed. The claimant contended that her credibility was powerfully affected by this. We’ve accepted however that Mrs Fischer had been to the event before and planned to go but had been unable to at short notice which is how she was confused. 466. The change in her evidence shows how memory of an event can be affected by the passage of time. The claimant alleges that he was powerfully affected by this incident (see his para 23 and 24) and has now named a relevant witness. Even if he was still in employment, the difficulties experienced by Miss Ganswindt and Ms Fischer in recalling the event and conversation before it show that he might also have problems recalling detail. 467. The claimant relies on fear of losing employment if he raised the claims at the same time about the respondent and we note his paragraph 26. However there is no evidence that he had any basis for such a fear. 468. Overall, we do not think that the claimant has put forward a convincing explanation for the delay in presentation of the claim based on either event. He relies upon job and security and financial reasons which would undoubtedly have been matters to weigh in the balance when deciding whether to take action or not. His claim to have been unaware of the process or lacking an English language employee handbook is not a sufficient explanation, in our view, for not taking action if he was as effected by it then as he now says. It may be understandable that a new employee in a new company not sure of the culture in the company who has family responsibilities does not take action about an event such as that described in LOI.4.a. In our view that is, in essence, a judgement call that he was entitled to make. That does not mean that he is entitled years later to say © EAT 2025 Page 17 [2025] EAT 95