Labour, Law, and Liability: Inside the Groundbreaking Case Against Dyson

16 May

“The abuse I have faced has caused me a great deal of pain and distress. I thought by showing the conditions we were facing at the ATA factory, Dyson would take steps to help the workers, but instead I was punished by the police. I hope that now Dyson will listen to the issues the workers have faced and take action to help us rebuild our lives.”[1] — Dhan Kimba Limbu, one of the claimants

The legal case involving 24 Nepalese and Bangladeshi migrant workers against three companies in the Dyson group, two of which are English companies and one is a company incorporated and domiciled in Malaysia has reached a new milestone.[2] After three years of waiting to determine where the case can be brought, the migrant workers have finally secured the right to have their case heard in the English courts.

How did the case begin?

A group of Nepalese and Bangladeshi migrant workers brought claims in tort and unjust enrichment, alleging that they had endured forced labour and severely exploitative working and living conditions while employed at the ATA Industrial and Jabco factories in Johor Bahru, Malaysia, between 2011 and 2022.[3] Dyson Malaysia contracted ATA and Jabco to manufacture components and products for the company.[4] The workers were initially recruited through brokers or agents working for ATA and Jabco.[5] When the case was first brought before the High Court, the judges made clear that Malaysia constituted the appropriate forum by taking into account the location where the harm and the alleged mistreatment occurred.[6]

Yet, for the claimants, returning to the Malaysian courts was not a viable option. Many lived in poverty, faced language and legal barriers, and feared retaliation and as a result they will not be able to obtain substantial justice in Malaysia.[7] In November 2024, they challenged the jurisdictional ruling before the Court of Appeal in England, arguing that their alleged mistreatment was not isolated to the factory floor.[8] Rather, they claimed Dyson exerted a high degree of control over the operations and working conditions of workers in Dyson group’s supply chain through mandatory policies and standards that were crafted at Dyson’s UK headquarters and implemented by Dyson Malaysia through audits and training across supply chains in Southeast Asia.[9]

Remarkably, the Court of Appeal reached a contrary conclusion to the earlier judgment, establishing that England is the appropriate forum for the case.[10] Key factors in considering what amounts to substantial injustice included claimants’ inability to fund proceedings in Malaysia, practical conveniences such as attendances of witnesses and claimants, the huge imbalance in standard of legal representation, and “the centre of gravity” of the case which must take into consideration the role of Dyson in developing the policies in England, the breach of duty of care in implementing such policies and failing to respond adequately to harms done, and the unjust enrichment which ultimately took effect in England.[11]

Dyson subsequently sought to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court. However, on 1 May 2025, permission to appeal was refused on the grounds that the application did not raise a point of law of general public importance.[12]This final jurisdictional determination means the substantive case will now proceed to trial in the English courts.

What is next?

The Dyson case can potentially have an implication on transnational corporate accountability. This case extends potential liability to abuses occurring at a third-party supplier. Previous landmark cases such as Vedanta Resources PLC and another –v- Lungowe & others [2019] and Okpabi and others v Royal Dutch Shell PLC [2021] had established that UK parent companies could face liability for acts of their foreign operations based on principles of control and assumption of responsibility, even with partial ownership structures. However, the Dyson litigation represents a significant expansion of this principle by applying similar liability concepts to contracted supplier relationships rather than corporate subsidiaries within the same group structure. [13]

This will be the first major case to examine whether establishing detailed supplier standards and monitoring systems can create enforceable legal duties. The ruling will question whether implementing robust supply chain compliance systems may, in fact, create legal responsibilities that hold companies liable if those systems fail to prevent abuse. Such an expansion of liability could fundamentally alter how multinational corporations manage and approach their supplier relationships globally.

After three years of jurisdictional battles focusing merely on where the case should be heard, the substantive proceedings examining Dyson's potential liability will finally commence. For the claimants—individuals who have waited more than a decade for redress—the Supreme Court's decision to allow the case to proceed in England represents only the beginning of their pursuit of justice, not its conclusion. It remains to be seen whether this hard-won avenue for justice can ultimately hold Dyson accountable for the alleged abuses after so many years of legal struggle.

References:
[1] https://www.leighday.co.uk/news/news/2023-news/allegations-of-forced-labour-and-dangerous-conditions-at-dyson-malaysian-factory-to-be-heard-in-high-court/

[2] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Limbu-v-Dyson-judgment.pdf

[3] https://www.leighday.co.uk/news/news/2025-news/migrant-workers-case-to-proceed-in-english-courts-following-supreme-court-refusal-of-dyson-appeal/

[4] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Limbu-v-Dyson-judgment.pdf

[5] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Limbu-and-others-v-Dyson-Technology-19.10.23.pdf

[6] Id.

[7] https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/limbu-and-others-v-dyson/

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Limbu-v-Dyson-judgment.pdf

[12] https://www.2tg.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/UKSC-2025.0019-Limbu-and-others-v-Dyson-Technology-Limited-and-others-1-151.pdf