In a landmark ruling, published on 13 December 2024, the UK Court of Appeal has allowed allegations of forced labour, hazardous working conditions, and human rights abuses at Malaysian factories supplying products to Dyson to be heard in English courts. This decision overturns an earlier High Court judgment.

The case involves 23 migrant workers and the estate of one deceased worker who were employed at two factories in Johor, Malaysia, operated by ATA Industrial and Jabco. These factories were central to Dyson’s supply chain, manufacturing products such as vacuum cleaners, lighting, haircare devices, heaters, and fans.

The claimants, predominantly from Nepal and Bangladesh, allege that during their employment, which spanned three to nine years, they were subjected to forced labour, physical assault, degrading treatment, false imprisonment, and unsafe working conditions. In addition, they report having endured substandard living arrangements that compounded the difficulties they faced.

The claimants assert that Dyson had been aware of the exploitative practices at ATA Industrial since whistleblower Andy Hall raised concerns in November 2019. Despite this, the company failed to take appropriate action to address the issues.

Dyson denies responsibility, stating that ATA Industrial and Jabco were independent suppliers. The company argues that it had no direct involvement in or knowledge of the alleged unlawful practices at these facilities.

In 2023, the High Court ruled that the case should be heard in Malaysia rather than England. Dyson successfully argued that the alleged abuses occurred in Malaysia under Malaysian law and that Malaysian courts provided an adequate forum for justice. Additionally, Dyson maintained that its UK entities had no direct connection to the alleged violations, further reinforcing its position that English courts lacked jurisdiction over the matter.

The claimants, represented by law firm Leigh Day, appealed the High Court’s decision. They argued that the alleged abuses were tied to decisions and policies made by Dyson’s UK headquarters, making the English courts an appropriate forum to hear the claims.

The claimants also highlighted several significant challenges they would face in pursuing justice in Malaysia:

Financial Barriers. Many claimants lacked the financial resources to initiate and maintain legal proceedings in Malaysia.

Limited Legal Representation. Due to the complexity and scale of the case, securing legal representation in Malaysia proved nearly impossible.

Fear of Reprisals. Claimants expressed fears of being arrested by Malaysian immigration authorities if they returned to the country for court proceedings, citing visa violations tied to their period of forced labour.

Imbalance of Power. The claimants underscored the resource disparity between themselves and Dyson, a multinational corporation with extensive legal and financial capabilities.

The Court of Appeal, which heard the case on 26 and 27 November 2024, overturned the High Court ruling. The appellate court found multiple errors in the High Court’s judgment and determined that the claims should proceed in the English courts.

Jurisdiction and Connection to the UK. The Court of Appeal emphasized that Dyson Technology Limited and Dyson Limited, two of the principal defendants, are domiciled in England. This domicile creates a reasonable expectation that these companies could face legal claims in English courts.

Access to Justice. The appellate court recognized that the claimants faced insurmountable barriers to pursuing their claims in Malaysia. Financial hardship and a lack of available legal representation were deemed significant obstacles.

Risk of Reprisals. The court acknowledged the claimants’ fears of arrest by Malaysian immigration authorities, a factor that would severely hinder their ability to attend court proceedings in Malaysia.

Evidence and Witness Availability. It was noted that most key documents and witnesses relevant to the case were located in England, further supporting the argument for an English trial.

Equality of Arms. The court stressed the importance of ensuring a fair trial. Given the significant imbalance of resources and power between the impoverished claimants and Dyson, the Court of Appeal underscored the necessity of providing a forum where justice could be effectively served.

The case will now proceed in the English High Court. The court will set a timeline for the subsequent stages of the proceedings, culminating in a trial.

The upcoming trial will address critical questions about corporate responsibility, human rights, and the ethical management of global supply chains. Beyond the immediate legal implications, the case is expected to set a precedent for other workers seeking justice against multinational corporations for alleged abuses.