The High Court’s decision in Limbu & Ors v Dyson Technology Ltd [2026] EWHC 38 (KB) offers two practical reminders for litigators: first, the importance of discipline when drafting Replies; and secondly, the potential costs consequences of overly aggressive tactical applications.
Mr Justice Pepperell addressed both issues during case management of group litigation brought by migrant workers against Dyson companies in relation to alleged working and living conditions at Malaysian factories within the Dyson supply chain.
Although the broader litigation concerns serious allegations of exploitation and forced labour, the procedural rulings in this judgment provide useful guidance on pleading practice and litigation conduct.
Background
The claim was brought by 24 migrant workers from Nepal and Bangladesh who alleged they had been subjected to exploitative working and living conditions while working at factories in Malaysia that manufactured components for Dyson products.
The claimants advanced causes of action including:
- Negligence
- False imprisonment
- Intimidation
- Assault and battery
- Unjust enrichment
Dyson denied liability and argued that the factories were operated by independent companies and that Dyson neither controlled nor assumed responsibility for the conditions experienced by workers.
During the case management process, two procedural disputes arose which led to important observations from the Court.
- Over-pleading in Replies
One issue concerned the claimants’ 66-page Reply, which the defendants applied to strike out in substantial part.
The Court emphasised several cardinal principles of pleading, noting that statements of case must remain concise and should plead only material facts necessary to advance the cause of action or defence.
In particular, the Court reiterated that:
- A Reply should not introduce new grounds of claim.
- It should not repeat or embellish matters already pleaded in the Particulars of Claim.
- It should not contain commentary or background evidence.
- It is wrong in principle to plead immaterial matters simply to widen disclosure obligations.
The judge concluded that the Reply breached these principles and was substantially longer than it ought to have been.
While courts will sometimes tolerate minor pleading imperfections, this case went further. The Reply contained large sections that added nothing of substance and risked obscuring the real issues in dispute.
The Court therefore accepted that the document was defective and ordered that many of the offending passages be removed.
Why this mattered
The Court highlighted a practical concern: an excessively long Reply can make it difficult for the Court and parties to identify whether the document contains anything of real value.
As the judge observed, wholesale breaches of pleading rules risk obstructing the just disposal of proceedings, rather than simply creating “untidiness”.
The message is clear: pleadings must remain focused, concise and directed to the issues that genuinely require determination.
Tactical applications and proportionality in costs
The second issue concerned the defendants’ application to strike out parts of the Reply.
Although the defendants succeeded in part, they did not recover all of their costs.
The Court considered that the defendants had taken an approach that was “somewhat aggressive” in pursuing the application.
In particular:
- The defendants issued their application before allowing the claimants the time they had indicated they needed to respond.
- They insisted on indemnity costs, which hindered potential resolution.
- Their costs schedule exceeded £60,000, which the Court considered disproportionate for the issue in dispute.
The judge also observed that the work involved could have been handled more proportionately – for example, by delegating more work to junior counsel.
Ultimately, the Court ordered that the claimants should pay only 50% of the defendants’ costs of the application.
Conduct and the overriding objective
In reaching this decision, the Court referred to the factors in CPR 44.2, which require consideration of the parties’ conduct when making costs orders.
The Court also emphasised the duty under CPR 1.3, which requires parties to assist the Court in furthering the overriding objective.
This includes acting reasonably when deciding whether to raise, pursue or contest issues during litigation.
Practical lessons for litigators
This decision reinforces several practical points for practitioners.
- Replies must remain tightly drafted
A Reply should only address matters raised in the Defence and should not:
- introduce new claims,
- repeat the Particulars of Claim, or
- contain narrative commentary.
Over-pleading risks judicial criticism and potential strike-out.
- Focus on material facts
Statements of case should plead only the facts necessary to establish the claim or defence, not background evidence or argument.
Concise pleadings assist both the Court and opposing parties in identifying the real issues.
- Consider proportionality before making applications
Even where a party succeeds, aggressive or premature applications can still lead to reduced cost recovery.
Litigators should consider whether allowing time for clarification or amendment may resolve the issue without Court intervention.
- The Court will scrutinise litigation conduct
Costs decisions are increasingly influenced by how parties conduct themselves during proceedings.
Actions perceived as unnecessarily adversarial or disproportionate may affect the outcome of costs awards.
Conclusion
Limbu v Dyson highlights two recurring themes in modern litigation: the need for discipline in pleadings and the importance of proportionality in litigation tactics.
For practitioners, the decision serves as a reminder that both overly expansive pleadings and overly aggressive procedural applications can attract judicial criticism – and potentially adverse costs consequences.
Keeping pleadings concise and adopting a proportionate approach to procedural disputes will remain key to effective case management under the CPR.