Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr J Logo v Payone Gmbh and others kind of offensive material that the former colleague had experienced. We do not think that the adjective would have been used if the participant in the image was white and therefore this comment was related to race. 426. It is unrealistic in a social setting to expect the claimant to explore what was meant more directly by something so obviously offensive. The claimant says that the laughter meant that he believed that they found this actually funny. There may well have been laughter. This was not necessarily inconsistent with Mr Risch explaining in German something which was shocking and provoked nervous laughter and therefore not necessarily inconsistent with them denying that they were telling a joke. As we’ve explained we consider that Mr Risch has done the best he can to try and recollect the event but now he is hampered by being asked about it for the first time so long after the event. 427. We have concluded that Mr Risch did not deliberately set out to offend or humiliate the claimant but, given the shocking nature of the comment, we accept that it did so. In all the circumstances, it is reasonable for the conduct to be regarded as having the harassing effect, the test of harassment is made out and the comment was related to race. It occurred in June 2019 and the question of jurisdiction therefore falls to be considered in due course. [emphasis added] 35. The Employment Tribunal also determined this complaint on the basis of effect rather than purpose. It was accepted that the comment was made and in the circumstances it is hardly surprising that the Employment Tribunal found that it had the prescribed effect. This did not turn on the evidence of Mr Risch. Time 36. Having found that these two acts of harassment were established the Employment Tribunal went on to determine whether the complaints in respect of them had been submitted in time. 37. The Employment Tribunal held of the timing of the complaints: 463. A claim based on LOI.4.a [the black face incident] should have been presented by 17 February 2017 and was actually presented on 16 March 2021 nearly four years late. A claim based on LOI.m.[the comment at the dinner] should have been presented around 10 September 2019 at the latest - if one assumes in the claimant’s favour that the incident happened on 11 June 2018 (see the claimant’s statement at para.163). In order to be in time, he should therefore had contacted ACAS or presented no later than 10 September 2019. He contacted ACAS on 6 February and therefore the claim based on this allegation is approximately four months late. [emphasis added] The Time Cross-Appeal 38. The respondent pointed out that the Employment Tribunal made an error in the dates in relation to the comment at the dinner. The claimant agrees. The respondent correctly contends that © EAT 2025 Page 16 [2025] EAT 95