The High Court’s decision in Limbu & Ors v Dyson Technology Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 38 (KB) demonstrates that aggressive and disproportionate conduct on procedural applications will result in severe costs reductions, even for the successful party.
Background
The claim was brought by or on behalf of twenty-four Nepalese and Bangladeshi migrant workers regarding alleged exploitative and abusive working and living conditions at two Malaysian factories within the Dyson supply chain. The claims were advanced in negligence, various intentional torts (false imprisonment, intimidation, assault, battery), and unjust enrichment. The defendants denied all liability. Proceedings were issued in May 2022 but were significantly delayed by a jurisdiction challenge by the defendants [§5]. The Court of Appeal ultimately rejected that challenge in December 2024, and the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal in May 2025 [§5]. Pleadings closed in autumn 2025, and the first costs and case management conference was held on 19 December 2025 [§6-7]. The judgment addresses several case management issues, with costs considerations permeating the court’s analysis throughout.
Costs Issues Before the Court
The judgment directly addressed several discrete costs-related issues. First, there was the fundamental case management decision of whether to order a split trial of liability and quantum for lead claimants, or to try preliminary liability issues on assumed facts. This decision had significant implications for the overall proportionality and future cost of the litigation. Second, the court had to determine the costs consequences of the defendants’ largely successful application to strike out substantial parts of the claimants’ Reply, including an assessment of the reasonable and proportionate costs of that application [§48-62]. Third, the court considered an application for early specific disclosure, where the potential for early disclosure to streamline pleadings and avoid later cost was a key factor [§71-82]. Finally, the court noted the need for future costs management, highlighting the “enormous” incurred and budgeted costs of £5.2 million (claimants) and £7.5 million (defendants) and expressing serious concern about their scale [§85-86].
Beyond these discrete issues, proportionality considerations drove the court’s approach to every major case management decision.
The Parties’ Positions
On the overarching case management issue, the claimants argued for a conventional split trial of liability and quantum for a group of lead claimants [§10]. They contended this would allow findings on liability based on actual facts, promoting a just and cost-effective resolution. The defendants advocated for the trial of preliminary legal issues on assumed facts, arguing this would be a more proportionate first step that could potentially dispose of the case without the cost of hearing witness evidence [§11-12].
On the strike-out application, the defendants, having largely succeeded, sought their costs on the indemnity basis and requested an order that 50% of the costs of the Reply be disallowed [§55.4]. The claimants, while conceding most of the defective paragraphs, argued the application was overly aggressive. Rather than consenting to strike-out, they made a cross-application to withdraw the impugned passages by amendment, seeking to avoid adverse costs consequences [§49, §55.6].
Regarding early disclosure, the claimants argued that early inspection of five key categories of documents—including audit reports, meeting minutes, and correspondence—would facilitate an effective disclosure process and might lead to targeted re-amendments, promoting efficiency [§71-73]. The defendants resisted, seeing no justification for departing from the standard disclosure timetable [§74].
On costs management, both parties had filed substantial budgets, but the court had not yet heard detailed argument, instead signalling its serious concern at the December hearing [§85].
The Court’s Decision
Split trial versus preliminary issues
The court ordered a split trial on liability for lead claimants, rejecting the preliminary issues approach [§45]. It found the defendants’ proposal risked creating “dangerous confusion” by requiring findings on Dyson’s knowledge based on a mix of assumed and proven facts [§31.2]. It also held that such an approach would likely increase delay and cost, as any appeal would be on hypothetical facts, and a second liability trial might still be needed [§31.3-31.5]. This decision was fundamentally guided by the overriding objective and the need to manage the case justly and at proportionate cost, particularly given the existing delay and the inequality of arms between the parties [§8].
The court also excluded the unjust enrichment claim from the stage-1 liability trial [§45.3]. It held that it would be “disproportionate and inconvenient” to require forensic accountancy evidence at the liability stage, as such evidence would need to be prepared twice—first for liability and again for quantum—and the experts could not properly assess the alleged enrichment without first having the court’s findings on working and living conditions [§44].
Strike-out application costs
On the strike-out application costs, the court held the defendants were entitled to costs as the largely successful party [§56]. However, due to their conduct—issuing the application on 21 November rather than waiting for the claimants’ promised substantive response due 26 November, when over three weeks remained until the relisted hearing—the court reduced their entitlement to 50% of their costs [§55-56]. The defendants’ insistence on indemnity costs in the context of this particular strike-out dispute contributed to preventing the parties from resolving what the court characterised as “this storm in a teacup” [§56.3]. The court also noted that the claimants had contributed to the dispute by tactical manoeuvring and failing to consent to the strike-out application [§55.6, §56.3].
Critically, the court then conducted a summary assessment. It rejected the defendants’ claimed costs of £61,366.03 as “unreasonable and disproportionate,” finding that “to spend over £60,000 on this issue” demonstrated that “[t]he application has been fought without any proper regard to the actual importance of the issue or the value of these claims” [§58]. The court criticised the instruction of leading counsel on the documents, the claim for over 18 hours of partner time, over 100 hours’ work on the documents, and over 12 hours’ work on costs alone [§58]. It also rejected the premise that total counsel brief fees of £105,000 for the case management conference were reasonable, or that 20% of such fees was justified for the remaining strike-out issues [§59].
The court found that the reasonable and proportionate costs for the application were no more than £12,000. Consequently, the defendants were awarded only £6,000 (being 50% of £12,000) [§60].
The court declined to make a specific order disallowing 50% of the costs of preparing the Reply, leaving that for detailed assessment, but noted that a costs judge would be entitled to consider the wasted costs incurred in pleading paragraphs that should never have been in the Reply [§62].
Warning to the parties
The court issued an express warning to the parties. It stressed the importance of the duty of co-operation under r.1.3, citing the Court of Appeal’s observation in Município de Mariana v BHP Group [2022] EWCA Civ 951 that co-operation in group litigation is “of the utmost importance” [§8.6]. Both sides had failed to comply with that duty: the claimants by defective drafting and tactical resistance; the defendants by aggressive and disproportionate pursuit of the application. The court stated that parties should “take note” that such conduct would result in recovery of “only a fraction of the unreasonable and disproportionate costs” incurred [§61].
Early disclosure
The court granted the application for early specific disclosure of the five categories of documents [§82]. It found a “proper basis” for the order, as early access to these key documents—which Dyson had already identified given their prior expenditure of over £540,000 on disclosure—would help the claimants assess their case and consider any necessary amendments promptly [§78-80]. This was held to be consistent with the duty of co-operation in group litigation and would assist in correcting the information asymmetry between the parties, potentially avoiding later cost and delay [§77-81].
Costs management
Finally, on costs management, the court deferred the detailed budgeting exercise to an adjourned hearing [§85]. It explicitly warned the parties that it was “very concerned by the enormous incurred and budgeted expenditure in this case” and that they should not expect their projected costs to be approved “in anything like the sums estimated in their budgets” [§86]. The court invited the parties to co-operate in identifying tangible cost savings in their final budgets.
The Correct Approach To Summary Assessment | Guideline Hourly Rates
Proportionality: A View From The High Court
CPR 44.2 And The Courts’ Discretion As To Costs
Group Litigation: A Determination Of Costs Related To Common Issues
HHJ Dight Upholds Master’s Proportionality Finding
Costs Capping, Budgeting, Proportionality And Cases Of Wider Importance
