Limbu v Dyson: High Court orders liability trial for migrant workers' exploitation claims

The High Court has approved a split trial approach in complex litigation brought by Nepalese and Bangladeshi migrant workers against Dyson companies, rejecting the defendants' proposal to determine threshold liability issues on assumed facts.

Twenty-four migrant workers claim they were subjected to forced labour, exploitative working conditions, and in some cases detention and assault whilst employed at two Malaysian factories manufacturing Dyson components. The claims against three Dyson entities are pleaded in negligence, false imprisonment, intimidation, assault, battery, and unjust enrichment.

Mr Justice Pepperall directed that liability issues in negligence and intentional torts should be tried using lead claimants, with quantum reserved for later determination. The unjust enrichment claim was excluded from the liability trial due to concerns about proportionality and the need for extensive forensic accounting evidence.

The defendants had sought to try preliminary issues on assumed facts without claimant evidence, arguing this approach would be more efficient. They proposed determining whether Dyson owed any duty of care, whether they breached it, and whether they could be jointly liable for intentional torts committed by factory managers, all on the assumption that the alleged mistreatment occurred as pleaded.

The court rejected this approach, finding it would risk unsafe conclusions on assumed facts that might later prove disputed. Pepperall J noted the conceptual difficulty of making findings about Dyson's knowledge and control whilst assuming the truth of conditions that remained contested. The proposal risked requiring appellate courts to grapple with novel Malaysian law questions on assumed facts, contrary to established guidance against such courses.

The judgement emphasised the "huge imbalance" between impoverished, vulnerable claimants and well-resourced corporate defendants, requiring case management to ensure equality of arms. The court noted particular concerns about enormous anticipated costs threatening the claimants' access to justice through conditional fee arrangements, whilst defendants faced limited prospects of cost recovery even if successful.

Six lead claimants are to be identified, with Dhan Kumar Limbu highlighted as an obvious choice given his nine-year employment at the facilities and allegations of punishment for whistleblowing. The court suggested selecting claimants representing diverse experiences across both factories and nationalities.

The defendants were ordered to provide early specific disclosure of key documents referenced in related defamation proceedings, including audit reports, meeting minutes, and correspondence regarding working conditions. Pepperall J found this targeted disclosure would address information asymmetry and allow timely consideration of any necessary amendments, outweighing minor inconvenience to the defendants.

The court struck out substantial portions of the claimants' 66-page Reply as breaching pleading rules, though allowed re-amendments to plead aggravated damages based on the jurisdiction challenge and libel proceedings against broadcasters. The court found it properly arguable that these legal actions were calculated to impede the claims and prevent journalistic reporting.

The liability trial is scheduled for April 2027. Costs budgets totalling £5.2 million for claimants and £7.5 million for defendants were described as requiring substantial reconsideration, with the court expressing serious concern about the enormous expenditure and indicating budgets would not be approved at projected levels without compelling justification.

Copyright & permissions