8th May 2025: Former ATA Malaysia migrant workers’ forced labour case to proceed in English courts following Supreme Court refusal of Dyson appeal

Allegations by the claimants, who worked in two Malaysian factories supplying Dyson, include forced labour and dangerous working conditions.

Original Source: FMT – 8 May 2025

The UK Supreme Court has refused to let electrical appliance manufacturer Dyson appeal a ruling allowing allegations of forced labour and unsafe conditions at two Malaysian factories to be heard in English courts.

Yesterday, the court rejected Dyson’s application, agreeing with the Court of Appeal’s decision last December that the claims by migrant workers could proceed in the UK.

The Supreme Court said the appeal did not raise an issue of general legal importance.

Supreme Court decision sourced from: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0019#permission-to-appeal

Law firm Leigh Day, representing the workers, said the ruling removes the final obstacle preventing the claims from moving forward.

The High Court will now hear evidence on allegations of modern slavery and false imprisonment at factories supplying Dyson and decide whether the company is legally responsible for human rights abuses in its supply chain.

Leigh Day said the decision sets a strong precedent, making it harder for UK-based companies to avoid legal action in England for human rights, labour, or environmental abuses abroad. It said the judgment reinforces the role of English courts as a leading forum for holding UK companies accountable for overseas operations.

The 24 workers, originally from Nepal and Bangladesh – one of whom has since died – sued Dyson Technology Ltd, Dyson Ltd and a Malaysian subsidiary in 2022. They worked for ATA Industrial or its sister company, producing Dyson components.

Their lawyers allege that the workers had wages unlawfully deducted and were sometimes beaten for failing to meet production targets. The lawsuit claims Dyson was ultimately responsible.

Dyson denied the allegations and argued that the case should be heard in Malaysia, where the alleged abuses took place and Malaysian law applies. Dyson’s Malaysian subsidiary ended its contract with ATA in 2021.

In 2023, the High Court in London initially ruled that the claims should be pursued in Malaysia. But the Court of Appeal overturned that decision, ruling London was “clearly and distinctly the appropriate forum”. The appeals court also affirmed that English companies can be held accountable in the UK for harm caused abroad.

Claimant Dhan Kumar Limbu welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision. “We believe we were treated appallingly and forced to endure terrible conditions. The English justice system has allowed our voices to be heard. We now hope to achieve justice,” he said.

Andy Hall, an independent migrant workers’ rights advocate, called the ruling a hopeful sign for vulnerable workers seeking accountability from multinational companies.

“This decision sends a strong message: companies can’t avoid responsibility by outsourcing to countries where migrant workers struggle to access justice,” Hall said. “Despite long delays, the UK justice system hasn’t disappointed these workers.”

9th May 2025: International Trade Today – UK Supreme Court Rules Forced Labor Case Can Proceed Against Dyson

The U.K. Supreme Court ruled that a forced labor case against vacuum manufacturer Dyson can proceed in the U.K. in a win for the migrant workers who are suing the company over labor conditions in two Malaysian factories in its supply chains.

Dyson had challenged that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue in the U.K. because the alleged abuses happened in Malaysia and the case should therefore be heard under Malaysian law.

The U.K. High Court ruled in favor of Dyson in 2023, but the Court of Appeal overturned the decision in November 2024. The Supreme Court then ruled on May 8 that Dyson cannot appeal that decision.

This ruling, coming almost three years after the initial claim, was the final hurdle the plaintiffs had to overcome before the case can be heard in U.K. court. They argue, according to a press release from Leigh Day, the law firm representing them, that they faced “modern slavery and false imprisonment” and that Dyson should be held liable for human rights abuses.

The firm said that the decision represents a “strong precedent” which will prevent U.K.-headquartered companies from challenging jurisdiction in claims “relating to human rights, labour abuses and environmental claims abroad.

“The workers are of Nepalese and Bangladeshi origin and worked at the factories between 2012 and 2021, where they allegedly experienced “forced labor, false imprisonment, assault, battery, cruel and degrading treatment and exposure to extremely hazardous working conditions and abusive living conditions.”

In an interview, the lawyer representing the migrant workers, Oliver Holland, a partner at Leigh Day, said that the case is “a strong one” and that jurisdiction in England is well suited for it. He said that despite Dyson’s claims that it was unaware of the abuses at the factories, the company “had a high degree of control over the factory, which is common in the electronics industry.”

Dyson was “placing pressure on the factory for a higher rate” of production, he said, in full knowledge of what their demands would mean in terms of hours worked and impact on workers.

Dyson ended its relationship with the factories in question in 2021, but did not take any action to protect or compensate the affected workers, Holland said.

“Our clients are extremely poor and vulnerable migrant workers who suffered a great deal, and we would like them to receive compensation. … We would like to see Dyson change their behavior and behave in a more ethical way towards workers in their supply chain,” he said.

Lawyers representing Dyson didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Andy Hall, the migrant worker rights activist who initially aided the workers, said in a statement that “the Supreme Court’s final decision … is another moment of hope for vulnerable foreign workers looking to hold big businesses accountable in the English courts.”

Law 360 9th May 2025: Dyson Loses Bid To Take Forced Labor Claim To UK Top Court

Dyson Loses Bid To Take Forced Labor Claim To UK

By Eddie Beaver

Law360, London (May 9, 2025, 5:09 PM BST) — Dyson will fight claims in England that it did nothing about allegations of forced labor at Malaysian factories making components for the appliance manufacturer after the U.K.’s highest court refused it permission to challenge jurisdiction in the case any further.

Dyson’s application, in which it sought to challenge a decision by the Court of Appeal, “does no aise a point of law of general public importance,” according to an order dated May 1 and signe off by the U.K. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

The Court of Appeal ruled on Dec. 13 that England was clearly the appropriate forum for the case brought by the 24 migrant workers to be heard. That overturned a decision by the High Court, where a judge concluded that the case had strong links to Malaysia and would be better heard there.

The workers, from Nepal and Bangladesh, allege that they were trafficked from their home countries. They say they endured exploitative and abusive working and living conditions while employed by the third-party supplier of products and components for the Dyson Group, best known for its vacuum cleaners.

The workers claim that they were confined to crowded and insanitary factory accommodation and forced to work more than 12 hours a day for less than the minimum wage. They also say that they were tortured and beaten.

The third-party supplier is ATA IMS – a major, publicly listed company in Malaysia. ATA also disputes the underlying allegations. Dyson ended its contract with ATA in 2021, according to earlier court filings.

The alleged abuses were publicized in a Channel 4 program in 2022, which followed alleged whistleblowing reports by one of the claimants, Dhan Kumar Limbu.

Dyson launched a defamation case against Channel 4 after the broadcast. But it dropped its case in August, shortly after the U.K. broadcaster filed a defense in which it contended that the contents of the program were true.

Limbu and 23 other workers are suing Dyson Technology Ltd. and Dyson Ltd. – companies registered in Britain. Dyson Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd., a subsidiary based in Malaysia, is also a defendant.

The workers want Dyson to pay them compensation for alleged negligence, false imprisonment and unjust enrichment. They claim that the appliances company had been aware of the purportedly unlawful conditions since at least November 2019.

Oliver Holland, international team partner at Leigh Day, which is acting for the claimants, said the case underlines the importance of multinational corporations ensuring they have full knowledge of the conditions in their global supply chains.

“The Supreme Court’s rejection of Dyson’s permission to appeal application affirms the Court of Appeal judgment, and we hope it will make defendants think twice about challenging jurisdiction in other claims which only serves to delay justice,” Holland said.

Limbu said he hopes the English courts will enable the claimants to achieve justice for the suffering they endured.

A Dyson spokesperson has emphasized that the Court of Appeal’s judgment was on the procedural issue of where the case should be heard, not on the merits of the workers’ claims.

Dyson did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The claimants are represented by Marie Louise Kinsler KC and Tom Fairclough of 2 Temple Gardens and Edward Craven of Matrix Chambers, instructed by Oliver Holland of Leigh Day.

Counsel information for Dyson was not immediately available.

The case is Dhan Kumar Limbu and others v. Dyson Technology Ltd. and others, case number UKSC/2025/0019, in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

–Additional reporting by William Janes and Joanne Faulkner. Editing by Ed Harris.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 8 May 2025 – Leigh Day: Migrant workers’ case to proceed in English courts following Supreme Court refusal of Dyson appeal

Sourced from: Leigh Day – May 8 2025

Supreme Court refuses Dyson’s application to appeal Court of Appeal judgment
Case brought by migrants who worked at factories operated by suppliers in Malaysia where many Dyson products were made
Allegations by the claimants include forced labour and dangerous working conditions

The Supreme Court has refused to grant Dyson permission to appeal a Court of Appeal ruling that allegations of forced labour and dangerous conditions at two Malaysian factories which made electronics products for the company can be heard in the English courts.

The Supreme Court rejected Dyson’s application to appeal the ruling made by the Court of Appeal in December 2024 that the legal claim by migrant workers at the two Malaysian factories can be heard in the UK, finding that the application did not raise a point of law of general public importance. The decision, which comes almost three years after the claim was issued, removes the final barrier delaying the claims from proceeding before the English courts.

The High Court will now hear evidence of the allegations of modern slavery and false imprisonment in factories that supplied Dyson and issue a judgment on whether Dyson should be liable for the human rights abuses allegedly present in their supply chain. Dyson denies that it is responsible for any of the allegations of unlawful working practices.

The Court of Appeal decision stands as strong precedent which will make it difficult for UK-headquartered companies to challenge jurisdiction in claims relating to human rights, labour abuses and environmental claims abroad. The judgment also further confirms that the English courts are the leading jurisdiction in which claimants are able to access justice for business and human rights related issues stemming from the international operations of UK companies.

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. 

The Nepalese and Bangladeshi workers, who worked at the factories between 2012 and 2021, allege they experienced forced labour, false imprisonment, assault, battery, cruel and degrading treatment and exposure to extremely hazardous working conditions and abusive living conditions. Dyson says in 2019 it investigated claims of abusive labour practices and determined they were not substantiated and disputes that it had knowledge of any wrongdoing since 2019. However, in November 2021, Dyson announced that it had terminated its contract with the supplier factories after receiving the results of a 2021 Environmental and Social Responsibility audit of compliance with Dyson’s supplier code of conduct, and a whistleblower complaint regarding “unacceptable actions by ATA staff, including an Executive Director of ATA, that had allegedly taken place on 28th June 2021”.

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

In November 2024, the workers took their case to the Court of Appeal, arguing the claims should be heard in the English courts as they relate to alleged harm caused by decisions and policies made centrally in the UK by Dyson UK companies and personnel. The claimants, who are extremely impoverished, also argued that there is a substantial risk that they would not be able to access justice in the Malaysian courts, partly because of their inability to fund a legal claim and to obtain suitable legal representation prepared to take on their case in Malaysia. This contrasted with the legal representation available to the claimants in England, where Leigh Day is acting for them on a ‘no-win-no-fee’ basis.

Following this hearing, in December 2024 the Court of Appeal accepted the claimants’ arguments on jurisdiction and overturned the previous High Court ruling. The Court of Appeal made clear that English companies whose operations cause damage abroad can be held to account in the country where they are based, and that substantial inequality of resources between the parties in other countries will be considered by the English courts when deciding whether to allow claims to proceed here.

The Supreme Court’s decision now means the substantive case can now proceed towards a trial in the High Court in London.

The civil negligence and unjust enrichment claims are 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 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 KC of Matrix Chambers. 

One of the claimants, Dhan Kumar Limbu, said:  

“I am very happy that the Supreme Court has ruled that our case can be brought in the English courts. It is our belief that we were treated appallingly and made to suffer terrible working conditions in these factories. The justice system in England has established a benchmark around the world for allowing the voices of people like us to be heard. We now hope it will enable us to achieve justice for the suffering we had to endure.” 

Leigh Day partner Oliver Holland said: 

“The Supreme Court has now backed the Court of Appeal and ruled that our clients can seek justice in a place where they believe they have a fair chance of holding Dyson to account for its alleged role in the abuses and horrendous conditions they endured.

“This case underscores the importance of multinational corporations ensuring they have full knowledge of the conditions in their global supply chains.  

“Our clients welcome the ruling that their claims can proceed in the English courts and look forward to them being resolved as soon as possible so they can get some recompense for what they lost and move on with their lives.

“The Supreme Court’s rejection of Dyson’s permission to appeal application affirms the Court of Appeal judgment and we hope it will make defendants think twice about challenging jurisdiction in other claims which only serves to delay justice.” 

Andy Hall, Independent Migrant Worker Rights Specialist, said:  

“The Supreme Court’s final decision to reject Dyson’s appeal efforts, again seeking to deny the UK court’s jurisdiction in the migrant workers’ forced labour claim against them, is another moment of hope for vulnerable foreign workers looking to hold big businesses accountable in the English courts.

“Given these former ATA workers couldn’t achieve justice and compensation for their abuse before now, the workers hoped the UK courts would enable their case to be heard in the English courts. The UK justice system, in the end, despite lengthy delays, has not disappointed them.

“Given the decision by the Supreme Court, the former ATA workers finally now have an important legal channel to pursue their claim.

“The decision of the Supreme Court to deny Dyson’s appeal has again sent a strong signal that companies cannot escape responsibility by outsourcing their production to countries like Malaysia, where migrant workers find it difficult to access justice and remediation.”

Notes to editors

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.

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

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

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.

Channel 4 original documentary on ATA case in Malaysia

Channel 4 story on Dyson’s abandoning libel claim against it

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 the 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.

Law 360 26th November 2024: Migrant Workers Want Dyson Forced Labor Claim Heard In UK

By Joanne Faulkner

Law360, London (November 26, 2024, 5:54 PM GMT) — A group of migrant workers urged the Court of Appeal on Tuesday to allow a compensation claim to be brought against British appliance maker Dyson in the U.K. over alleged labor abuses that took place at a Malaysian factory run by a former contractor.

Marie Louise Kinsler KC of 2 Temple Gardens, representing the workers, told appellate judges that claims from 23 “impoverished migrant workers” and one relative of a dead migrant worker against three companies in the Dyson Group should proceed to trial in the U.K.

Dyson successfully challenged the jurisdiction of the claims in 2023, which arise out of allegations of forced labor at a factory run by ATA IMS, a large, publicly listed company based in Malaysia. The company also denies the underlying allegations.

The workers, who are from Nepal and Bangladesh, are looking to reverse the High Court ruling that their claims do not have sufficient links to the U.K. and should be heard in the Southeast Asian country.

The legal action has been brought against Dyson Technology Ltd. and Dyson Ltd. — companies registered in the U.K. “for over 30 years” and with a “substantial number of employees in England,” Kinsler said. Dyson Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd., which is based in Malaysia, has also been named as a defendant. Kinsler said this was because they worked closely with the U.K. companies for “supply-chain monitoring and enforcement.”

Kinsler told the court that the claim is an “attempt to hold U.K. companies [to] account for injuries and losses suffered by vulnerable individuals who were subjected to forced labor and shocking abuses while manufacturing products sold by those U.K companies.”

The appeal arises out of post-Brexit changes to the U.K.’s jurisdiction regime and a departure from the European Union‘s legal framework, Kinsler said. After Brexit and the non-applicability of the Brussels Recast Regulation, English courts can now decline to hear claims against U.K.-domiciled companies on the ground that the court of another state would be a more appropriate forum for the trial, Kinsler said.

The workers are also seeking to set aside an order that claims against Dyson Malaysia cannot be served out of jurisdiction.

The claimants allege that they were subjected to exploitative and abusive working and living conditions while employed by a third-party supplier of products and components to the Dyson Group. They are seeking compensation for alleged negligence, false imprisonment and unjust enrichment and claim that Dyson had known about allegedly unlawful conditions since at least November 2019.

Kinsler argued on Tuesday that the High Court was wrong to rule that the case belonged in Malaysia as the main thrust of the litigation concerns the alleged role of the two U.K.-based Dyson companies and the enforcement of mandatory working condition policies for suppliers.

“The creation, promulgation and enforcement of those policies was carried out by employees and executives of the English defendant who were employed and situated at the headquarters of the English defendants in England,” the claimants argue in court documents.

The claimant lawyers also argue that there is a substantial risk that the group would be unable to achieve justice in Malaysia, partly because they are unable to fund a legal case in the country, and obtain suitably qualified and resourced lawyers.

A spokesperson for Dyson said in a statement Tuesday that the Leigh Day, the lawyers for the migrant workers, had brought the claim “against the wrong company in the wrong jurisdiction … Dyson strongly disputes the underlying allegations against it and will continue to defend itself robustly.”

The hearing is set to continue on Wednesday when Dyson will argue its case.

Dyson’s legal team say in court documents that contrary to the claimants’ contention that post-Brexit, the court is concerned with a new legal framework for jurisdiction, the guidance is now drawn from English common law, rather than EU regulation.

The claimants are represented by Marie Louise Kinsler KC of 2 Temple Gardens, and Richard Hermer KC and Edward Craven of Matrix Chambers and

Dyson is represented by Charles Gibson KC, Adam Heppinstall KC and Freya Foster of Henderson Chambers, instructed by Baker McKenzie.

The case is Dhan Kumar Limbu and others v. Dyson Technology Ltd. and others, case number CA-2023-002333 in the Court of Appeal.

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

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.

Story 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.