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.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
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."