Dhan Kumar Limbu & Ors v Dyson Technology Limited & Ors

In complex group litigation, the court may select representative lead claimants where common issues can be tried efficiently, but the selection should reflect the diversity of the claims and the factual issues likely to matter. A conventional liability trial based on evidence from lead claimants is distinct from a preliminary-issues trial based on assumed facts. Preliminary issues should be ordered cautiously where facts are disputed, the proposed determination may be unsafe or irrelevant, or the procedure risks delay and duplicated costs. Early specific disclosure may be ordered where known documents are important to case management, knowledge or control, particularly where there is information asymmetry, provided the order is limited and imposes no unnecessary search burden. Pleadings must remain concise and confined to material facts, and a Reply must answer the Defence rather than introduce or repeat a case.

Twenty-four Nepalese and Bangladeshi migrant workers sued three Dyson companies over alleged trafficking, forced labour and abusive working and living conditions at two Malaysian factories in the Dyson supply chain. The claims included negligence, intentional torts and unjust enrichment, with Malaysian law applicable.

At the first costs and case management conference, the parties agreed that the claims should be tried in stages but disputed whether stage 1 should comprise a liability trial for selected lead claimants or preliminary issues of potential liability decided on assumed facts. The court also determined applications concerning expert evidence, pleadings, amendments, early disclosure and costs.

1. Case management and lead claimants. The claims were suitable for a representative sample of lead cases. Lead claimants should be identified at this stage, with the selection designed to represent the wider group, including differences in nationality, length and nature of service, factories and factual allegations. The court would determine the final number and selection process at the adjourned case management conference.
2. Preliminary issues. A preliminary-issues trial based on agreed or assumed facts is distinct from a conventional split trial of liability and quantum. It should be ordered cautiously, especially where material facts are disputed, the issue may be unsafe, useless or irrelevant after trial, or the procedure risks unfairness, delay, amendments or duplicated costs. The defendants’ proposal was refused. The alleged working and living conditions, and the defendants’ knowledge and control of them, were disputed and central to duty, breach and liability for intentional torts. The court applied the caution expressed in Tilling v Whiteman [1980] A.C. 1, Steele v Steele [2001] C.P. Rep. 106 and the other authorities reviewed.
3. A liability trial should proceed for the selected lead claimants in negligence, false imprisonment, intimidation, assault and battery, with quantum left over. Any real causation issue affecting whether a particular cause of action was actionable on proof of loss was to be kept under review. The unjust enrichment claim was excluded from stage 1 because liability and assessment could not safely or conveniently be separated and forensic accountancy evidence would be disproportionate if prepared twice.
4. Expert evidence. Permission was granted for expert evidence on Malaysian law, but oral expert evidence was deferred to the pre-trial review. No other expert evidence was necessary at that stage.
5. Pleadings and amendments. The Reply breached the principles requiring concise pleading of material facts and could not be used to introduce an additional ground of claim, repeat the Particulars of Claim, plead immaterial matters to obtain disclosure or reserve an unfettered right to amend. The offending passages were struck out under r.3.4(2)(b), while paragraphs 98–99 of the Amended Particulars of Claim could be deleted by re-amendment. Amendments alleging that the jurisdiction challenge and libel proceedings were calculated to impede redress or reporting had a real, rather than fanciful, prospect of success and were allowed.
6. Disclosure and costs. Limited early specific disclosure was ordered for known documents in the five categories identified by the claimants. The order required no further search and was justified by the importance of the documents, information asymmetry, potential re-amendment and the parties’ duty of co-operation. The defendants recovered £6,000, representing 50% of the reasonable and proportionate costs of the strike-out application, assessed on the standard basis.

The judgment records that the jurisdiction challenge was initially successful at first instance, but the Court of Appeal rejected it and lifted the stay: [2023] EWHC 2592 (KB); on appeal, [2024] EWCA Civ 1564, [2025] I.C.R. 560. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused on 6 May 2025. This judgment determined subsequent case-management and interlocutory applications.