Case 6003553/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Dusunceli v Axl Hair Ltd t/a Alexander Hair Salon — 2026
- Case reference
- 6003553/2024
- Decision date
- 24 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hart
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms Cook, Mr Townsend
Parties
2 namedMs Dusunceli
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningUnanimous judgment by Employment Judge Hart with lay members Ms Cook and Mr Townsend at London South. The tribunal found the date of dismissal was 18 March 2024. The claimant succeeded on her wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal complaints; her sex discrimination complaint did not succeed. On remedy, the tribunal found the claimant would have left or been dismissed by 30 June 2024 due to a deterioration in the relationship between the parties (Polkey cap), and that the claimant contributed to her dismissal by 70% (deducted from basic and compensatory unfair dismissal awards). The respondent failed to comply with the ACAS Code, attracting a 20% uplift on the wrongful and unfair dismissal complaints. The claimant received: three weeks' outstanding notice pay (£1,384.59) plus 20% ACAS uplift = £1,661.51 net; a basic award reduced by 70% contributory conduct of £833.54; and a compensatory award (after 20% ACAS uplift and 70% contributory reduction) of £1,446.21 (subject to recoupment, with prescribed element £302.70 for universal credit between 22 April 2024 and 30 June 2024).
Claims and outcomes
3 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Upheld | — | £1,662 |
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,941
- Basic award
- £834
- Compensatory award
- £1,446
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.