ESG Enforcement Tracker

Key facts:

Nepalese and Bangladeshi migrant workers brought claims against three companies in the Dyson group. They claimed that they had been trafficked to Malaysia and subjected to forced labour, in “exploitative and abusive working and living conditions”, manufacturing parts in the Dyson group supply chain.

In July 2023, the High Court concluded that Malaysia was the more appropriate forum for the claims to be heard, and that there was no real risk of the claimants being unable to access justice there.

In overturning the decision, the Court of Appeal pointed to errors made by the High Court, including failures to consider:

• that Dyson UK was domiciled in England;
• that the “centre of gravity” of the case was England, instead emphasising the location of the alleged underlying offending (being in Malaysia);
• that the defendants’ defence would be conducted from England for Dyson UK; and
• incorrectly assessed practical challenges alleged by the defendants if the case were to be tried in Malaysia, such as inadequate funding and remote participation.

The Court of Appeal’s evaluative assessment found that “England clearly and distinctly [was] the appropriate forum in which the case should be tried”. The Court of Appeal noted several factors pointing in favour of the claim being heard in England, such as funding, the domicile of the parties, practical convenience, that the litigation would be coordinated and conducted in London, and the equality of arms.

Nepalese and Bangladeshi migrant workers brought claims against three companies in the Dyson group. They claimed that they had been trafficked to Malaysia and subjected to forced labour, in “exploitative and abusive working and living conditions”, manufacturing parts in the Dyson group supply chain.

The claimants served proceedings on behalf of a group of migrant workers against the three defendants in England. The first two defendants were English companies (collectively “Dyson UK”), and the third was “Dyson Malaysia”. All three defendants challenged the claim on the basis of forum non conveniens – that England was not the proper place to bring the claim.

In December 2024, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision declining to exercise jurisdiction in England against English and Malaysian companies within the Dyson group. In May 2025, the Supreme Court refused Dyson permission to appeal, finding no issue of general public importance. This refusal removed the last jurisdictional barrier and allowed the substantive claim to proceed in England. This confirmed that litigation would be tried in London and may make it harder for UK-based defendants to resist jurisdiction in similar transnational claims. The Dyson decision demonstrates that UK-based defendants may be increasingly challenged in resisting English court jurisdiction over transnational claims. Arguments that any alleged offending did not occur in England and therefore should not be heard in the jurisdiction of UK courts will be balanced in an evaluative assessment of the appropriate forum for the case to be tried.

In a judgment handed down on 14 January 2026 – Limbu & Ors v Dyson Technology Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 38 (KB), following a case-management hearing on 19 December 2025, the High Court ruled that; (i) a split trial would be ordered, with liability to be determined first and damages only considered if the case succeeds; (ii) a small group of lead claimants to test common issues across all claims were selected – the claims of 24 former migrant workers would be tried by hearing the evidence of six lead claimants on the conditions in the Malaysian factories and worker accommodation in the Dyson electronics supply chain; (iii) required targeted early disclosure from the defendants; (iv) refused to decide issues on assumed or hypothetical facts, holding that matters must be resolved on full evidence at trial; and (v) emphasised proportionality and cost control, discouraging procedural tactics that would delay or overcomplicate the case.

Mr Justice Pepperall stressed the need to ensure that the vulnerable claims were on equal footing with the commercially experienced defendants, particularly given the allegations of very serious human rights abuses. He stressed a compelling need for the case to progress 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 further migrant workers with potential similar claims against Dyson. Pepperell J noted that any such claims should not disrupt the trial of the present claims.

During the pre-trial phase, in February 2026, the parties settled the claims out of court, with Dyson denying liability and maintaining that the settlement did not constitute any admission of wrongdoing. Under the terms of the settlement the details of any compensation to the workers have not been disclosed.