13th Dec 2024: UK Court of Appeal confirms allegations of forced labour and dangerous conditions for migrant workers at Malaysian factory ATA, making products for Dyson, can be heard in UK Court

LONDON, Dec 13 (Reuters) – Two dozen migrant workers who allege they were subjected to forced labour at a Malaysian factory ATA while making parts for British vacuum cleaner manufacturer Dyson can sue the company in London, the Court of Appeal ruled on Friday.

The 24 workers from Nepal and Bangladesh, one of whom has died and whose estate brought the case, sued Dyson Technology Ltd, Dyson Ltd and a Malaysian subsidiary in 2022.

Original Source: Reuters – 13th December 2024

The claimants were workers for Malaysian firm ATA Industrial or its sister company and made components for Dyson products.

Their lawyers say the workers had money unlawfully deducted from their wages and were sometimes beaten for not meeting onerous targets, alleging in a lawsuit at London’s High Court that the Dyson companies were ultimately responsible.

Dyson, whose Malaysian subsidiary cancelled its contract with ATA in 2021, denies the claimants’ allegations and argued that any lawsuit should be brought in Malaysia rather than Britain.

Last year, the High Court threw the case out and ruled that the workers could sue in Malaysia.

But the Court of Appeal overturned that decision, saying in a written ruling that London was “clearly and distinctly the appropriate forum” for the cases to be heard.

“This was a procedural hearing to determine where the main case should ultimately be heard,” a Dyson spokesperson said.

“The High Court was right last year in its carefully considered ruling that it should be heard in Malaysia and we disagree with today’s appeal decision,” the spokesperson added, explaining that Dyson was reviewing its legal options.

The company – founded by James Dyson, the inventor of the bagless cleaner – employs around 2,500 people in Britain, including at its R&D centre in Malmesbury, west England, having announcedin July that it was cutting about 1,000 jobs.

Reporting by Sam Tobin; Editing by Catarina Demony

—

Leigh Day Press Release 13th Dec 2024: Court of Appeal confirms allegations of forced labour and dangerous conditions at Malaysian factories making products for Dyson can be heard in UK

Limbu v Dyson Court of Appeal – PR.pdf PRESS RELEASE Download

The Court of Appeal has today ruled that a legal case brought by migrant workers against
Dyson regarding allegations of forced labour and dangerous conditions at two Malaysian
factories, which made electronics products for Dyson, can be heard in the English courts.

The claim against Dyson is being brought by 23 migrant workers and the estate of one
deceased migrant worker who worked at factories operated by two supplier companies
ATA Industrial and Jabco in Johor, Malaysia, where many Dyson products were made. The factories were operated by ATA and Dyson denies that it is responsible for any unlawful
acts of ATA Industrial and Jabco.

Limbu v Dyson Court Judgement Full.pdf Download

The group of Nepalese and Bangladeshi workers worked at the factory for between three
and nine years. They allege forced labour, false imprisonment, assault, battery, cruel and
degrading treatment and exposure to extremely hazardous working conditions and abusive
living conditions.

In 2023 the High Court ruled the case should be heard in Malaysia and not in England after
Dyson, which now has its HQ in Singapore, challenged the right of the English courts to hear the claims. Dyson argued that there was not a sufficient connection to the UK for it to be heard here, pointing to the fact that any alleged wrongdoing happened in Malaysia and Malaysian law applies. Dyson also argued that since the claimants will have access to justice in Malaysia, the claims should be heard there.

A Court of Appeal hearing was held on 26 and 27 November 2024, with the workers arguing
the claims should be heard in the English courts as they relate to alleged harm caused by
decisions and policies made centrally by Dyson UK companies and personnel. The
claimants also argued that there is a substantial risk that they would not be able to access
justice in the Malaysian courts, in part owing to their inability to fund a legal claim and
obtain suitable legal representation who would be prepared to take on their case in
Malaysia.

The Court of Appeal accepted the claimants’ arguments and overturned the High Court
ruling, confirming that the claim can proceed in the High Court in London.

The Court of Appeal found the High Court judge had made a number of errors, including
failing to take account of the fact that the two “principal” protagonists, the Dyson UK
defendants, were domiciled in England and therefore those defendants “can reasonably
expect, and be expected, to meet claims against it in such courts” (paragraphs [34]-[37]).

In light of these numerous errors, the Court of Appeal reconsidered the issue of the appropriate forum and decided that the claims can proceed in the English High Court, onthe basis that:

the impoverished claimants would be unable to fund their claims in Malaysia and
Malaysian NGOs and lawyers could not be expected to fill the funding gap
(paragraphs [63] to [64]);
the majority of the most important documents and witnesses would be located in
England not Malaysia (paragraphs [66] to [67]);
the claimants would be unable to attend hearings in person in Malaysia for fear of
arrest by immigration authorities due to visa breaches during the period in which they allege they were trapped in modern slavery (paragraph [68]); and
there would be inequality of arms between the parties in Malaysia (in comparison to
England where the claimants have obtained experienced legal representation) as
“there is a huge imbalance between the impoverished and vulnerable claimants and
the well-resourced and commercially experienced defendants, and the allegations are of very serious human rights abuses, there is a particular need to ensure equality of arms in the conduct of litigation if justice is to be served” (paragraphs [75] and [59]).

The civil negligence claim is being brought against three Dyson companies within the Dyson Group: Dyson Technology Limited and Dyson Limited, based in Malmesbury in Wiltshire, and Dyson Malaysia in Johor Bahru near to the ATA Industrial and Jabco factories.

The next step will be for the English High Court to hear submissions from the parties as to
how the claims should be managed, and to set a timetable for the remainder of the
proceedings up to a liability trial.
The claimants are represented by partner Oliver Holland of law firm Leigh Day, with
barristers Marie Louise Kinsler KC and Tom Fairclough of 2 Temple Gardens and Edward
Craven of Matrix Chambers.

One of the claimants, Dhan Kumar Limbu, said:
“When I started this case with my colleagues, I was hopeful that UK law would support our
claim. The UK Courts have established a benchmark for justice for vulnerable people like
me, allowing our voices to be heard. I would like to thank everyone who has supported our
claim with their endless effort.’’

Leigh Day partner Oliver Holland said:
“The Court of Appeal’s decision ensures our clients have the opportunity to seek justice in
a forum where they believe they will have a fair chance of holding Dyson accountable for its
alleged role in the abuses they suffered and the horrendous conditions they were made to
work in. This case also underscores the importance of multinational corporations ensuring they have full knowledge of the conditions in their global supply chains.

“Our clients are pleased that the Court of Appeal has allowed these claims to proceed. However, they have suffered significant delay due to the Defendants’ attempt to prevent the claims being heard in the English courts – they now want their claim to be resolved as
soon as possible in the hope that they can get something back for what they lost and move
on with their lives.”

Andy Hall, Independent Migrant Worker Rights Specialist, said:
“The Appeal Court’s decision to accept jurisdiction in the migrant workers’ forced labour claim
against Dyson means the workers now have an important legal channel to pursue their claim.

“Given these workers haven’t been able to achieve justice and compensation regarding their
alleged abuse in Malaysia, they hoped the UK courts would enable their case to be heard in the English courts. The UK justice system, in the end, has not disappointed them.

“The decision of the Court of Appeal has sent a strong signal that companies cannot escape
responsibility for the treatment of their workforce by outsourcing their production to countries where migrant workers find it difficult to access justice and remediation.”

Background
The claimants, who are all represented by law firm Leigh Day, were employed at the
factories, which predominantly produced products for Dyson’s vacuum cleaner, lighting,
haircare, heaters and fan ranges. ATA Industrial was Dyson’s largest ‘box-build’ (the
complete assembly of a customer’s finished product) partner, supplying around one third of its global ‘box-build’ production.

The former workers allege that Dyson had known about allegedly unlawful conditions since
at least November 2019 when they were notified by whistleblower Andy Hall.

Additionally, they argue that the exploitation and dangerous working conditions faced by migrant workers in Malaysian factories has been widely reported for over a decade and is something that Dyson should have been aware of. Dyson disputes that it had knowledge of any wrongdoing since 2019 and says in 2019 it investigated Mr Hall’s claims and determined they were not substantiated.

In their legal claim, the workers argue that Dyson was unjustly enriched as a result of the
allegedly unlawful, exploitative and dangerous conditions at the factory. They argue that Dyson is liable for the alleged breaches of their legal rights due to the company’s knowledge of the alleged unlawful practices at the ATA factory and because of their alleged assumption of responsibility through numerous public statements regarding their policies and procedures for detecting and preventing forced labour and exploitation in their supply chains, and the audits they conducted of the Malaysian factories to ensure compliance
with these policies.

Court of Appeal holds that claims concerning alleged forced labour of migrant workers should be heard in England

Published: 13th Dec 2024 and sourced from HERE

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by 24 impoverished migrant workers against an order of the High Court which held that claims concerning alleged subjection to forced labour should be heard in Malaysia, rather than England.

The Claimants are impoverished migrant workers from Bangladesh and Nepal. They allege that they were trafficked to Malaysia, where they were subjected to forced labour and exploitative and abusive living and working conditions (and, in the case of some of them, detention, beatings and torture) while employed by two Malaysian companies (ATA Industrial (M) Sdn Bhd and Jabco Filter System Sdn Bhd) which manufactured components and products in the supply chain of the Dyson Group. The Claimants have brought claims in tort and unjust enrichment against three companies within the Dyson Group: two are domiciled in England; the third is domiciled in Malaysia. The claims allege that the Defendants are legally responsible for the abuse and exploitation which the Claimants were allegedly subjected to during their employment by ATA and Jabco (which are not part of the Dyson Group). The Defendants deny that they are responsible for any of the Claimants’ alleged exploitation, abuse or mistreatment. The Defendants deny any liability to the Claimants and have stated that they intend to defend the claims vigorously.

In October 2023, the High Court held that Malaysia was the more appropriate forum for the claims to be heard and that there was no real risk that the Claimants would be unable to access justice there. The High Court therefore ordered that the claims could not proceed in England. In a judgment delivered on 13 December 2024, the Court of Appeal (the Master of the Rolls, Popplewell LJ and Warby LJ) unanimously allowed the Claimants’ appeal against that determination. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court’s judgment involved multiple errors of principle and reached conclusions which were plainly wrong. The Court of Appeal went on to hold that, contrary to the conclusion reached by the judge, England is clearly the more appropriate place for the case to be tried. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeal held (amongst other things) that the domicile of the Defendants, the location of the issues in the case, practical convenience and equality of arms all favour a trial in England. The Court of Appeal also held that, in view of the Claimants’ extreme poverty, there was a serious risk that they would be unable to bring claims in Malaysia. The Court of Appeal therefore ordered that the claims should continue in the English courts.

Edward Craven represented the successful claimants/appellants, together with Marie Louise Kinsler KC and Tom Fairclough (2TG), instructed by Leigh Day.

The Court of Appeal’s judgment is available here. A summary of the judgment is available here.

29th August 2024 Channel 4 News: Dyson abandons libel claim against Channel 4 News report on Dyson/ATA Malaysia alleged migrant abuse saga

By Andy Hall / 29/08/2024

Channel 4 and ITN today confirm that Dyson abandons libel claim against Channel 4 News, after over two years of court proceedings.

Original Source: Channel 4 News – 29th August 2024

Dyson sued Channel 4 and the makers of the programme, ITN, after the programme reported on appalling conditions in factories in Malaysia where Dyson products were being manufactured.

In February 2022, Channel 4 News’ investigations team revealed how a group of migrant workers, recruited by Dyson’s contractor ATA IMS from countries including Nepal and Bangladesh to make appliances for Dyson, were taking legal action alleging exploitative working and living conditions.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/JuVQ6vOFAmE?feature=oembedStory released on Channel 4 News: 29th August 2024

It reported how concerns about forced labour conditions at ATA had been flagged to Dyson as far back as 2019; concerns Dyson categorically denied until September 2021 when an extensive audit revealed serious abuses at the factory. ATA also denied the allegations.

Before the broadcast, Channel 4 News put the allegations formally to Dyson who responded by warning that if the programme ran the allegations, it could be liable for billions of pounds of damages. Confident of its journalism, Channel 4 News broadcast the story.

A protracted and costly two-year legal battle that followed has now come to an end, after the programme submitted its lengthy 184-page defence to the High Court.

Sir James Dyson’s individual claim over the report was struck out back in 2022, after the High Court ruled the allegations of exploitation of workers at a factory that used to supply goods to his firm did not defame him.

Campaigners have today hailed the outcome as a victory for public interest journalism.

In a joint statement, Channel 4 and ITN said:

“Channel 4 and ITN confirm that the company has abandoned its claim against the programme, two years after it investigated appalling conditions in Malaysian factories where their products were made.

Despite prolonged and costly court proceedings, Channel 4 News was determined to defend its fair, accurate, and duly impartial reporting. The freedom to report without fear or favour is essential to both the industry and a thriving democracy.

Today’s outcome underscores the vital role of robust, independent investigative reporting that is clearly in the public interest and sets an important precedent for the future of investigative journalism in the UK.”

In a statement to Channel 4 News ahead of its broadcast tonight on the case, Dyson said:

“We strenuously deny the false claims made by Channel 4 News in its broadcast. It is ATA – an independent manufacturer – that must answer questions about its treatment of its workers in Malaysia. The comoany will never condone the mistreatment of workers anywhere in the world and defends its reputation when it is necessary.”

“It is categorically wrong to describe this defamation action as a SLAPP. This was a legitimate complaint against false claims made in a broadcast which harmed Dyson’s reputation. Like anyone, they are allowed to exercise its right and defend its reputation through the Courts.”

Speaking to Channel 4 News for its reporting on the case today, Charlie Holt of the UK Anti-Slapp Coalition said:

“These legal tactics are used by anyone who seeks to block accountability. We’ve seen them used by Russian oligarchs, by corporations such as Dyson, and other powerful figures. And they’re used against a range of different communities seeking to exercise their democratic rights to speak out and advance accountability.”

“These lawsuits represent a form of legal bullying which are designed to force the target to retract their criticism. And they do that by using the litigation process to harass, intimidate and drive up costs.”

Meanwhile, Dhan Khumar Limbu and 22 other former migrant workers continue to fight for compensation from Dyson which denies any liability. Dyson is vigorously fighting their claim – and the next hearing will be at the Court of Appeal.

Channel 4 News’ report of February 2022 is available to view again here.