Case 3310882/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Mostovoy Tarasova v Airbus Defence and Space Limited — 2024

Case reference: 3310882/2023
Decision date: 18 November 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Murdoch
Panel members: Ms Betts, Ms Crosby

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A Mostovoy Tarasova

Respondent

Airbus Defence and Space Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The case was heard at Reading by CVP on 11, 12, 13, 14 and 18 November 2024 before Employment Judge Murdoch, with Ms Betts and Ms Crosby sitting as members. The claimant, Mr A Mostovoy Tarasova, appeared in person and the respondent, Airbus Defence and Space Limited, was represented by counsel.

The Tribunal’s unanimous judgment was that the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for making a flexible working request was not well-founded and was dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed the claimant’s complaints of direct discrimination on grounds of age and race, finding those complaints were not well-founded.

The complaint of victimisation was likewise found not well-founded and dismissed. No monetary award was recorded in the judgment, and no remedy was set out beyond the dismissal of the claims.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Automatic unfair dismissal complaint for making a flexible working request.	Dismissed	—	—
Age discrimination	Direct discrimination on grounds of age.	Dismissed	Age	—
Race discrimination	Direct discrimination on grounds of race.	Dismissed	Race	—
Victimisation	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.