Case 3323262/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Augusta Kimani v Central Bedfordshire Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 3323262/2021
- Decision date
- 26 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Members
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
- Panel members
- Mr S Holford, Mr R Allan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Augusta Kimani
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bury St Edmunds on 12, 13, 14 and 15 September 2023 before Employment Judge Graham, with lay members Mr S Holford and Mr R Allan. Miss Augusta Kimani appeared in person and Central Bedfordshire Council was represented by counsel. The tribunal's unanimous decision was that the complaint of direct race discrimination failed, the complaint of indirect sex discrimination failed, the complaint of breach of the Working Time Regulations failed, the complaints of whistleblowing detriment and dismissal failed, and the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal failed.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent. Because all complaints were dismissed, no monetary remedy was awarded in the judgment record provided.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaint dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination complaint dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Working time regulations | Complaint under the Working Time Regulations dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Whistleblowing complaints of detriment and dismissal dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal complaint dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.