On 14 January 2026, the High Court handed down a significant case management decision in Kumar Limbu & Others v Dyson Technology Limited & Others [2026] EWHC 38 (KB), setting the procedural direction for claims brought by 24 Nepalese and Bangladeshi migrant workers against 3 Dyson companies. The ruling provides important guidance on the management of complex, high-value group litigation involving claimants, many of whom the Court considered could be regarded as vulnerable, and allegations of serious human rights abuses in global supply chains.

The proceedings concern claims by 24 migrant workers (the Claimants) alleging that they were trafficked to Malaysia and subjected to forced labour, exploitative and abusive working and living conditions, while working in factories manufacturing components for Dyson. Some claimants allege false imprisonment and torture. The claims are brought against two English and one Malaysian Dyson group companies (collectively Dyson), on grounds including negligence, intentional torts (false imprisonment, intimidation, assault, battery), and unjust enrichment. The Claimants allege that Dyson exercised a high degree of control over operations and conditions at the factories through detailed contractual provisions with the factories' operators ATA Industrial (M) Sdn Bhd (ATA) and Jabco Filter System Sdn Bhd (Jabco) and failed to prevent the alleged abuses. Dyson denies liability, including the existence of any duty of care or joint liability for intentional torts, and argues that many claims are time-barred.

Notably, the alleged direct perpetrators, ATA and Jabco, have not been joined as parties to the proceedings at this stage, although establishing their liability would be central to the claims against Dyson. Though Dyson had indicated that it intends to pursue third-party claims against ATA and Jabco, it is yet to do so.

Following the Court of Appeal’s (CoA) decision December 2024 confirming England as the appropriate forum for the claims (overturning the ruling of the lower court) the proceedings were remitted to the High Court to decide the appropriate case management structure for the litigation going forward (see further our blog post here). We set out the key elements of the Court's decision below.

Approach to case management: addressing inequality, vulnerability, costs, and co-operation

The Court considered the appropriate approach to case management of such complex, international groups claims which ensure sensitivity to "huge imbalance” between impoverished Claimants, many of whom are likely to be vulnerable and the well-resourced defendants. Referring to the CoA's acknowledgment of the "inequality of arms" in the proceedings, the Court reiterated the need for the case to be managed in such a manner as to ensure the parties remained on "equal footing". Noting that many of the Claimants were illiterate and non-English speaking, it indicated that adaptations to the trial process may be required so as to ensure their full participation and allow them to provide their strongest evidence. 

The Court also emphasised the need to ensure that litigation of this nature is conducted justly and at proportionate cost. The Court noted that the total costs budgets filed by the parties to date were “enormous” and warned that disproportionate costs could undermine access to justice for all parties. The Court was clear that the proceedings should not become unduly delayed due to procedural disputes, which could jeopardise the Claimants’ ability to continue to instruct their lawyers on a conditional fee basis and risk a hollow victory if costs consume any damages recovered.

Underlining the duty of co-operation under CPR 1.3 as “of the utmost importance” in group litigation, the Court made clear that it would expect high level of pragmatism and co-operation from both sides going forward.

Selection of lead Claimants and trial structure

The Court also considered how the trial should be structured. No group litigation order has been sought or made under CPR 19.22 in this litigation. A central issue was whether to identify lead Claimants now and proceed to a split trial of liability and quantum, or to adopt Dyson's proposal for a preliminary issues trial on assumed facts (as in the Marianaⁱ and Pan NOxⁱⁱ group actions). 

The Court rejected Dyson's proposal, distinguishing the case from the Mariana and Pan NOx group actions on the basis that the central issues in such cases were generic and did not require claimant evidence. In contrast, it noted that the core allegations in these proceedings concerned the individual Claimants’ experiences of exploitation and abuse, which would be central to liability and require actual findings of fact. It was critical of the “siren song” of preliminary issues trials on assumed facts, citing the risks of delay, increased costs, and appellate difficulties.

Concluding that the case was a “paradigm example” for the use of lead Claimants, the Court directed that they should be identified at this stage, with a preliminary view that six would be appropriate to represent the broader class. It noted that, given the "relatively modest" value of each individual claim, particularly compared with the potentially significant cost of the litigation, an approach which established the liability in respect of lead claimants would be beneficial as it would encourage potential settlement of the remaining claims. This reasoning reflected the Court's position that in managing such cases, it should seek where possible to ensure timely and cost-efficient resolution of claims.  

To assist with the process, it provided guidance on the selection, noting the importance of ensuring a representative mix of Claimants (including both Nepalese and Bangladeshi workers, those with longer service, and those with diverse factual allegations). Although the Court noted that a further 70-100 further workers had contacted Leigh Day with potential similar claims against Dyson, it emphasised its focus was on managing the case before it. It declined to speculate on the possible impact of such potential claimants joining the claim at a later date, save for noting that in such circumstances, a primary consideration would be ensuring that "the case is not blown off course". The process for final selection will be determined at a further case management conference.

Additionally, the Court ordered a split trial: with all issues of liability in negligence and intentional torts (false imprisonment, intimidation, assault, battery) to be tried in respect of the lead Claimants, with quantum to follow if liability is established. However, it ordered that the claim in unjust enrichment would not be tried at this stage, given its parasitic nature and the disproportionate cost of requiring forensic accountancy evidence before liability is established.

Expert evidence

Permission was granted for expert evidence on Malaysian law, with directions for orderly exchange and joint reports. The Court did not permit other expert evidence (including forensic accountancy or medical evidence) at this stage but indicated that the need for such evidence should be kept under review, particularly in relation to causation issues.

Statements of case: strike-out and amendments

Dyson’s application to strike out large parts of the Claimants’ Reply was largely successful, with the Court finding that the Reply breached basic pleading rules by including irrelevant, repetitive, and immaterial content. However, although the Court ordered that the offending passages be struck out and awarded Dyson 50% of its (substantially reduced) costs, it criticised both sides for tactical and aggressive conduct and reiterated the importance of co-operation in group litigation.

The Claimants were permitted to re-amend their Particulars of Claim to plead additional particulars of aggravated damages, including Dyson’s conduct in pursuing jurisdiction and libel proceedings. The Court found that these amendments satisfied the "low hurdle" of having a real prospect of success (rather than being "fanciful") and could be pleaded without requiring Dyson to waive privilege.

Disclosure: early specific disclosure ordered

The Claimants sought early disclosure of five categories of documents referred to in related discontinued defamation proceedings against Channel Four News and ITN regarding news reports on the allegations of forced labour in their supply chain. These included minutes of meetings between Dyson and ATA, audit reports, correspondence from Dyson’s Chief Legal Officer, and documents relating to overtime requests. The Court granted early specific disclosure of these known documents, finding that, while early disclosure is not routine, it was justified here due to the information asymmetry and the importance of the documents to the issues of knowledge and control. Reiterating the need for efficient case management, it emphasised that early disclosure would allow the Claimants to assess the strength of their case and consider any necessary amendments at an early stage. 

Key takeaways

• Courts will take active steps to address inequality of arms and ensure vulnerable claimants can participate fully in group litigation, including adapting trial processes where necessary. In particular, courts will be particularly critical of any strategies adopted by corporate defendants which it deems to be aimed at obstructing procedure and delaying access to justice. 
• Judicial scrutiny of costs will be rigorous; parties should expect close examination of budgets and will be required to demonstrate genuine efforts to control and justify expenditure throughout the litigation.    
• The use of lead claimants and split trials remains the preferred approach in group claims involving individualised allegations, with preliminary issues trials on assumed facts reserved for cases where generic issues predominate.
• Early specific disclosure may be ordered in group litigation where it will materially advance case management and address information asymmetry.
• Strict compliance with pleading rules is expected; tactical or aggressive conduct in interlocutory disputes may be penalised in costs.

Next steps

The liability trial was scheduled for April 2027, with further directions and costs management to be agreed. On 26 February 2026, Leigh Day (acting for the claimants) announced that the parties had reached a settlement of the proceedings, stating that “the resolution was reached in recognition of the expenses of litigation and the benefits of settlement.”

This case management decision provides a clear, indicative procedural roadmap for managing complex group litigation involving serious allegations and vulnerable claimants, and will be of particular interest to corporates facing similar potential claims in the English courts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ⁱ Município de Mariana v. BHP Group (UK) Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 95

ⁱⁱ Pan NOx Emissions Litigation [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB)