Dyson settles forced labour suit in landmark UK case

James Dyson advocated for Brexit on the basis of supporting British industry, and shortly afterwards migrated the company HQ to Singapore.

I understand that there's a precedent here, but isn't normally the precedent for the opposite in contract law?

And if UK is precedent based, how come the previous precedents don't apply here?

I agree that no toilet breaks is cruel, but the problem here is knowing about the supplier using it?

There was not much about the legal bases in the article.

Why do employers deny their employees toilet breaks? Do they actually believe it makes the employees more productive, or are they just cruel people?

Why is Dyson being sued for actions taken by their suppliers? This is setting a bizarre precedent.