In a landmark decision on 13 December 2024, <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Limbu v Dyson Technology Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1564</span>, the English Court of Appeal ruled that allegations of forced labour in Malaysian factories supplying Dyson should be heard in the English courts. This decision overturns an earlier ruling by the High Court that the claims should proceed in Malaysia.
The claimants, migrant workers from Nepal and Bangladesh, allege they were trafficked and subjected to abusive and exploitative working conditions while employed by ATA IMS, a third-party Malaysian supplier producing components for Dyson products. Dyson terminated its contract with ATA in 2021 amidst rising scrutiny over labour conditions.
The Court of Appeal, with Lord Justice Popplewell giving the main judgment, held that England was "clearly and distinctly the appropriate forum" for the claims. Popplewell LJ stated that the alleged breach by Dyson UK involved a management failure to ensure adequate policies were implemented in Malaysia and to act on known or foreseeable abuses. The core allegations concern decisions and omissions which occurred within Dyson's UK operations.
The 24 claimants, led by whistleblower Dhan Kumar Limbu, seek compensation for alleged negligence, false imprisonment and unjust enrichment. They allege being subjected to inhumane conditions, including:
The claimants contend that Dyson was aware of these conditions as early as November 2019 but failed to intervene.
The allegations gained public attention following a 2022 Channel Four programme exposing the reported abuses. Dyson subsequently initiated defamation proceedings against Channel 4 but dropped the case in August 2024 after the broadcaster filed a defence asserting the programme's accuracy. Dyson’s spokesperson emphasised that the Court of Appeal's decision relates only to procedural jurisdiction, not the merits of the workers' claims, stating: “We refute the underlying allegations against Dyson” and reiterating the company’s belief that Malaysia remains the appropriate jurisdiction for the case.
The ruling sets an important precedent for transnational accountability in forced labour cases. By affirming that claims involving corporate oversight and management failures can be heard in a company’s home jurisdiction, the decision underscores the growing expectation for multinational corporations to address labour issues within their supply chains.
The claimants’ representative, Oliver Holland from Leigh Day, welcomed the ruling, noting it establishes a benchmark for justice for vulnerable workers: “The claimants want their case resolved quickly in the hope of getting some justice for what they endured”.
