Sohab Sarfraz v Cambridge Design Partnership Limited — 2026

Sohab Sarfraz sought interim relief in support of his claim that Cambridge Design Partnership Ltd had automatically unfairly dismissed him for making protected disclosures. Employment Judge Graham made a summary assessment without hearing oral evidence or making findings of fact binding at a later hearing. The question was whether Sarfraz had a "pretty good chance of success" in proving every part of his section 103A claim, a threshold significantly higher than the balance of probabilities used at a final hearing.

The judge focused on the alleged disclosure of 18 November 2025, which concerned the project budget, contractor costs, the alleged reuse of work and value for money. Sarfraz had a pretty good chance of showing that he disclosed information which he believed tended to show breach of a legal obligation, namely a commercial contract. He also had a pretty good chance of showing that he believed the disclosure was in the public interest. Whether that belief was reasonable was finely balanced and did not meet the interim-relief threshold, although the judge assumed in Sarfraz's favour for the application that this was a protected disclosure.

The greater difficulty was causation. The alleged disclosures were made to Ben Illidge, while Michael Zeitlyn, who was ultimately responsible for the dismissal, did not work for the respondent when the first disclosure was made. Although Zeitlyn was likely to have known about the subject matter before the dismissal, the material did not show the required likelihood that any disclosure was the reason or principal reason for his decision. Twelve people were within the redundancy exercise and six, including Sarfraz, were unsuccessful. Sarfraz appeared to accept that there was a genuine diminution in work and a genuine redundancy situation in principle. The judge held that the timing of the dismissal after the disclosures and existing whistleblowing detriment proceedings was not enough on its own to establish causation.

There was nothing before the tribunal at that stage to suggest anything untoward in the interview scoring. A redacted financial-year 2027 planning spreadsheet referring to Sarfraz's departure might later prove important or might be a red herring, as there was not enough information about when or by whom it was produced. The judge considered that reliance on Royal Mail v Jhuti appeared misconceived at this stage because Sarfraz accepted a genuine redundancy situation, while Jhuti concerned an invented reason for dismissal.

The judge was not persuaded that Sarfraz was likely to show that any alleged disclosure was the reason or principal reason for his dismissal. The interim relief application was therefore dismissed. The judgment did not decide the underlying automatic unfair dismissal claim and made no monetary award.