For Immediate Release 27th Feb 2026: Comment Attributable to Andy Hall, Independent Migrant Worker Rights Specialist, on the Dyson/ATA IMS Bhd (renamed WaveFront Berhad, Malaysia) Landmark Forced Labour Case Settlement Announcement

I have been leading documentation and advocacy efforts concerning labour and human rights abuses affecting vulnerable migrant workers in Dyson’s supply chain for over 7 years now across Asia.

With this experience in mind, I take this opportunity to share the following public comments on the Dyson/ATA IMS Bhd (renamed WaveFront Berhad, Malaysia) landmark forced labour case settlement that was announced today by Leigh Day in London, United Kingdom.

The settlement is a most welcome development. This is despite the settlement only seemingly involving a small number of the thousands of victims of forced labour at ATA IMS Bhd (renamed WaveFront Berhad, Malaysia) for which Dyson should also, in my personal opinion, be held fully accountable and liable.
This landmark legal precedent to hold multinational companies accountable in UK courts for their established failures to detect, prevent and remediate forced labour in their global supply chains is significant and positive.
This case settlement sends a strong signal in challenging times for advancing responsible business conduct globally that multinational companies cannot and should not escape responsibility or accountability by outsourcing their production to cheaper countries, like Malaysia, where there is limited to no rule of law, systemic impunity and corruption, and where migrant workers and other vulnerable groups of workers work at below living wages in situations where it is difficult for them to access effective justice and remediation.
Irresponsible disengagement by Dyson from ATA IMS Bhd in 2021 was in breach of international standards on responsible business conduct and was unacceptable, unethical and led to serious un-remediated long term negative impacts for thousands of victims of this forced labour situation.
Dyson’s regrettably has not, as far as I aware and despite this settlement, established any ‘compensation fund’ to remediate the vast majority of ATA IMS Bhd’s other forced labour victims who are not party to this case and its settlement.
Dyson should do far more to address migrant labour abuses and the risks of rights violations generally in its supply chains. Dyson should make this commitment to responsible business conduct a core part of how they do business in future.
The settlement is long overdue. It comes more than 5 years after I first raised the conditions of forced labour at ATA IMS Bhd with Dyson’s global sustainability team in London.
Given Dyson’s litigious response to the ATA IMS Bhd forced labour case and the company’s resistance to prompt remediation of its victims, today’s settlement has come about only because of resource intensive and tireless advocacy and legal action by me and my colleagues, Leigh Day and due to thorough, independent media reporting by media outlets like Channel 4 News.
It is regrettable that Dyson sought to limit the freedom and ability of independent media and civil society actors to cover the ATA IMS Bhd case, mostly notably by prosecuting Channel 4 News for libel (a case that was eventually withdrawn last year) and by issuing threats and notices to various media outlets in the UK and in Malaysia that were seeking to report on the case.
Limited resources prevented me personally from launching what I consider would have been justified legal action against Dyson for alleged defamatory statements made against me to various third parties concerning the ATA IMS Bhd forced labour case.

End

—

BBC 27th Feb 2026: Dyson settles forced labour suit in landmark UK case

Jonathan Head, South East Asia correspondent and Osmond Chia,Business reporter

Electronics appliance maker Dyson has agreed to settle a lawsuit filed against it by 24 migrant workers, who alleged they were subjected to forced and abusive treatment in a Malaysian factory making the firm’s parts.

The workers, from Nepal and Bangladesh, sued the firm in 2022 and described being subject to what amounted to modern day slavery.

Dyson has denied any liability. When the case was brought it said it had been previously unaware of the alleged abuses, and the Malaysia supplier should be held responsible instead.

The case is significant for establishing the precedent that allegations against foreign companies supplying British manufacturers can be judged in an English court.

The workers described being threatened and beaten, having their passports withheld, and being forced to work long hours in unsanitary conditions.

According to their lawyers, from Leigh Day, they were denied toilet breaks and forced to work “upwards of 12 hours at a time without relieving themselves”.

Under the terms of the settlement the details of any compensation to the workers are not being disclosed.

In separate but almost identical statements posted on their websites, Dyson and Leigh Day said the resolution was reached “in recognition of the expenses of litigation and the benefits of settlement”.

They both also said the settlement was not an admission of liability on Dyson’s part.

The company had earlier argued that the case should be heard in Malaysia, not Britain.

But the Supreme Court agreed that the trial could take place in an English court, setting a precedent that British companies can be held to account in the UK for actions taken by suppliers in another country.

Labour activists have for many years drawn attention to the problem of abuses of the large migrant worker population in Malaysia.

Dyson, popular for its line of premium hair dryers and home appliances, moved its manufacturing from the UK to Malaysia in 2002.

The Airwrap maker moved its headquarters to Singapore in 2019.

Sourced from: https://bbc.com/news/articles/cddnry8dnl7o

—

Dhan Kumar Limbu and others v Dyson Technology Limited, Dyson Limited and Dyson Manufacturing Sdn Bhd

Sourced from: https://www.leighday.co.uk/news/press-releases/2026-news/dhan-kumar-limbu-and-others-v-dyson-technology-limited-dyson-limited-and-dyson-manufacturing-sdn-bhd/

The parties to the claim entitled Dhan Kumar Limbu and others v Dyson Technology Limited, Dyson Limited and Dyson Manufacturing Sdn Bhd, issued with case reference QB-2022-001698, have reached a settlement of the proceedings.

Posted on 27 February 2026

This resolution was reached in recognition of the expenses of litigation and the benefits of settlement.

The Defendants deny and have always denied all liability in respect of the Claimants, who were employed by a third-party supplier, at factories in Malaysia which were owned and operated by ATA Industrial (M) Sdn Bhd and its related entities.

This settlement is not an admission of liability on the part of the Defendants.

DYSON STATEMENT HERE

—

14 Jan 2026 PRESS RELEASE: UK High Court rules that forced labour and exploitation claims against Dyson (ATA Malaysia case) will be tried next year

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday 14 January 2026

High Court rules that forced labour and exploitation claims against Dyson will be tried next year

Limbu v. Dyson Technology Ltd [2026] EWHC 38 (KB).pdf Download

A trial against Dyson companies of claims of modern slavery, forced labour and exploitation will take place in April 2027 (sourced from Leigh Day)

In a judgment handed down today, following a case management conference in December 2025, a judge ruled that the claims of 24 former migrant workers will be tried by listening to the cases of six individuals on the conditions in the Malaysian factories and worker accommodation in the Dyson electronics supply chain. The trial will determine the liability of the Dyson electronic corporate group to the six lead claimants.

Solicitors Journal 14th Jan 2026: Limbu v Dyson: High Court orders liability trial for migrant workers’ exploitation claims

Business Matters 14th Jan 2026: High Court rules forced labour claims against Dyson will go to trial in 2027

Law360 14th Jan 2026: Dyson Forced Labor Claims Could Swell Ahead Of 2027 Trial

Any compensation to be awarded and questions of the other claimants’ claims will be decided in a separate follow up trial.

The claimants, who are represented by law firm Leigh Day, allege that they were subjected to forced labour and false imprisonment while working to produce components for the Dyson supply chain, employed by Malaysian companies ATA Industrial (M) Sdn Bhd (ATA) and Jabco Filter System Sdn Bhd.

The High Court ordered that Dyson must now disclose certain “known” documents referenced in the now discontinued defamation claims brought by Dyson against Channel Four News and ITN regarding news reports on the allegations of forced labour in their supply chain:

Minutes from at least four separate meetings between Dyson and ATA that took place in 2021 regarding their ongoing commercial relationship.

A report from RBA/Elevate dated September 2021 about an audit carried out in 2021 of ATA’s factory facilities.

The reports from five audits carried out by Dyson or on their behalf by Intertek Group plc or its subsidiary between 2019 and 2021.

Six letters from Martin Bowen, Dyson’s Chief Legal Officer, to ATA dated between May and  October 2021.

The pre-approvals and requests from Dyson for ATA workers to work on rest days to maximise production volumes in 2021.

Mr Justice Pepperall stressed the need to ensure that the impoverished and vulnerable claimants were on an equal footing with the well-resourced and commercially experienced defendants, particularly given the allegations of very serious human rights abuses.

He urged the parties to move forward with realism and cooperation, and said there was a compelling need for the case to be progressed promptly after the delay caused by Dyson’s claim that the case should be tried in Malaysia rather than England.

The Judge also noted that Leigh Day had made the court aware that it had been contacted by hundreds of other migrant workers with potential similar claims against Dyson. Up to 100 of those had been identified as having potentially valid claims which would be ready to file with the court early this year. The Judge noted that any such claims should not disrupt the trial of the present claims.

In the coming months, the evidence from experts and factual witnesses, will be gathered and documents will be disclosed, including  internal documents from the Dyson defendant companies relating to their knowledge of the conditions in their supply chain.

The former migrant workers are represented by law firm Leigh Day, and the claim is led by international team partner, Oliver Holland. His team includes Celine O’Donovan, Liberty Bridge and Benji Gourgey.

Oliver Holland said:

“The Claimants’ position has been strengthened by this judgment, as has access to justice in England and Wales generally.

“The High Court has recognised the importance of an equality of arms in this case. This ruling helps protect the ability of our clients, who the High Court acknowledged are among the world’s poorest workers, to participate equally in a fair trial of their claims.

“We are keen to work with the courts to see this case progressed promptly and will work as efficiently as we can to achieve speedy justice for our clients.”

ENDS

Please direct any enquires to pressoffice@leighday.co.uk

NOTES

The judgment can be accessed here.

The claims are brought against Dyson Technology Limited, an English company concerned with the invention, development, sale and service of domestic appliances and commercial hand dryers and batteries; Dyson Limited, an English company concerned with the sale and service of domestic appliances and commercial hand dryers; and Dyson Manufacturing Sdn Bhd, a Malaysian company concerned with the manufacture, sale and distribution of Dyson products.

The claimants argue that the Dyson companies controlled the working and living conditions at the factories through detailed contractual provisions with ATA and Jabco. They argue that Dyson exerted a high degree of control over operations and conditions at the factories and that Dyson knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the high risk that workers might be subjected to unlawful forced labour and denied their minimum legal employment rights. The claim is pleaded in negligence, false imprisonment, intimidation, assault, battery, and unjust enrichment.

The defendants deny any liability to the claimants. They specifically deny that they assumed any responsibility towards the migrant workers in the Malaysian factories and that they owed such workers any duty of care. Dyson put the claimants to proof of their alleged working and living conditions while denying actual knowledge of the same. They argue that the claimants wrongly seek to hold Dyson liable for the actions of independent third parties that the defendants neither owned nor controlled. Dyson assert that many of the matters alleged are outside their knowledge and therefore they put the claimants to proof. Dyson deny any joint liability for intentional torts committed by third parties. Further, Dyson deny any liability in unjust enrichment. Such claim is, Dyson argue, misconceived in Malaysian law. Finally, Dyson assert that a number of claims are time-barred.

In May 2025 Dyson was refused permission to appeal a Court of Appeal ruling that the allegations of forced labour and dangerous conditions at two ATA Malaysian factories which made electronic products for the company can be heard in the English courts. Dyson had argued that the claims should be brought in Malaysia.

Dyson terminated its contract with ATA in November 2021 following an audit and whistleblower complaint alleging unacceptable actions by ATA staff, including a senior executive.

The Claimants allege they were subjected to forced labour, trafficking, and degrading living conditions while producing Dyson products in Malaysia at factories operated by ATA Industrial and Jabco.

For more information contact Leigh Day press office at pressoffice@leighday.co.uk

Maxine Wolstenholme, Senior Media Relations Manager
Leigh Day Building C (Man 35), Central Park, Northampton Road, Manchester M40 5BP
Tel0161 537 1125  Mob07775 713725

—

Solicitors Journal 14th Jan 2026: Limbu v Dyson: High Court orders liability trial for migrant workers’ exploitation claims

14 Jan 2026 |

COURT REPORT

Migrant workers’ lawsuit against Dyson to proceed in UK courts

Split trial approved over preliminary issues in Malaysian factory conditions case

-The High Court has approved a split trial approach in complex litigation brought by Nepalese and Bangladeshi migrant workers against Dyson companies, rejecting the defendants’ proposal to determine threshold liability issues on assumed facts.

Twenty-four migrant workers claim they were subjected to forced labour, exploitative working conditions, and in some cases detention and assault whilst employed at two Malaysian factories manufacturing Dyson components. The claims against three Dyson entities are pleaded in negligence, false imprisonment, intimidation, assault, battery, and unjust enrichment.

Mr Justice Pepperall directed that liability issues in negligence and intentional torts should be tried using lead claimants, with quantum reserved for later determination. The unjust enrichment claim was excluded from the liability trial due to concerns about proportionality and the need for extensive forensic accounting evidence.

The defendants had sought to try preliminary issues on assumed facts without claimant evidence, arguing this approach would be more efficient. They proposed determining whether Dyson owed any duty of care, whether they breached it, and whether they could be jointly liable for intentional torts committed by factory managers, all on the assumption that the alleged mistreatment occurred as pleaded.

The court rejected this approach, finding it would risk unsafe conclusions on assumed facts that might later prove disputed. Pepperall J noted the conceptual difficulty of making findings about Dyson’s knowledge and control whilst assuming the truth of conditions that remained contested The proposal risked requiring appellate courts to grapple with novel Malaysian law questions on assumed facts, contrary to established guidance against such courses.

The judgement emphasised the “huge imbalance” between impoverished, vulnerable claimants and well-resourced corporate defendants, requiring case management to ensure equality of arms. The court noted particular concerns about enormous anticipated costs threatening the claimants’ access to justice through conditional fee arrangements, whilst defendants faced limited prospects of cost recovery even if successful.

Six lead claimants are to be identified, with Dhan Kumar Limbu highlighted as an obvious choice given his nine-year employment at the facilities and allegations of punishment for whistleblowing. The court suggested selecting claimants representing diverse experiences across both factories and nationalities.

The court ordered sharing of reports, meeting minutes, and correspondence regarding working conditions. Pepperall J found this targeted disclosure would address information asymmetry and allow timely consideration of any necessary amendments, outweighing minor inconvenience to the defendants.

The court struck out substantial portions of the claimants’ 66-page Reply as breaching pleading rules, though allowed re-amendments to plead aggravated damages based on the jurisdiction challenge and libel proceedings against broadcasters. The court found it properly arguable that these legal actions were calculated to impede the claims and prevent journalistic reporting.

The liability trial is scheduled for April 2027. Costs budgets totalling £5.2 million for claimants and €7.5 million for defendants were described as requiring substantial reconsideration, with the court expressing serious concern about the enormous expenditure and indicating budgets would not be approved at projected levels without compelling justification.

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com

—

Law360 14th Jan 2026: Dyson Forced Labor Claims Could Swell Ahead Of 2027 Trial

By William Janes

Law360, London (January 14, 2026, 3:51 PM GMT) — Dyson could face around 100 more claims from workers alleging forced labor making components at Malaysian factories for the appliance manufacturer, a London court said Wednesday.

High Court Judge Edward Pepperall noted in the judgment that lawyers for the 24 workers currently suing Dyson told the court they could file the new claims in early 2026 after Leigh Day, which is representing the claimants, said it was contacted by hundreds more migrant workers who have alleged similar abuses.

According to the judgment, which deals with case management issues, the litigation “would be substantially expanded from the twenty-four current claimants to some four or five times that number” if the new potential claimants are joined to the case.

Judge Pepperall also set a liability trial date for April 2027, with another possible trial to determine damages later.

The 24 current claimants, from Nepal and Bangladesh, alleged they were trafficked from their home countries. They said 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 alleged they were confined to crowded and insanitary factory accommodations and forced to work more than 12 hours a day for less than the minimum wage. They also said they were tortured and beaten.

The third-party supplier is ATA IMS, a major, publicly listed company in Malaysia. ATA also has disputed 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 shortly after the U.K. broadcaster filed a defense in which it contended the contents of the program were true.

The named defendants are Britain-registered companies Dyson Technology Ltd. and Dyson Ltd., and Dyson Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd., a subsidiary based in Malaysia.

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

The revelation that the number of claimants could more than quadruple comes after Dyson lost its fight to have the case heard in Malaysia instead of the U.K.

The U.K. Supreme Court in May refused to hear Dyson’s appeal against the loss of its previous hallenge to the jurisdiction of English courts

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

Dyson has strongly denied the claims against it. A Dyson spokesperson told Law360 on Wednesday that no additional names of ex-ATA employees in Malaysia have been added to the claim currently before the High Court nor have any details been provided by Leigh Day.

“Any complaints from ex-ATA employees in Malaysia should be directed at ATA, a publicly listed Malaysian company with its own management and shareholders,” the spokesperson said.

Dyson and Leigh did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

The claimants are represented by Edward Craven KC of Matrix Chambers, Piers Feltham of Radcliffe Chambers, Thomas Fairclough of 2 Temple Gardens, and Joshua Jackson of Doughty Street Chambers, instructed by Leigh Day.

Dyson is represented by Nicholas Sloboda KC and Veena Srirangam of One Essex Court, instructed by Slaughter and May.

The case is Dhan Kumar Limbu and others v. Dyson Technology Ltd. and others, case number QB-2022-001698, in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.

–Additional reporting by Eddie Beaver and Joanne Faulkner. Editing by Lakshna Mehta.

—

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.

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.