- On 26 February 2026, a legal case brought by 24 migrant workers against Dyson over allegations of exploitative and dangerous conditions at a Malaysian supplier was settled out of court. The settlement is not an admission of liability.
- Before the settlement, the case produced an important legal precedent on UK jurisdiction: in May 2025 the Supreme Court confirmed that claims about alleged harm in overseas supply chains can be heard in the English courts.
- The settlement means the case will not go to a full trial. A trial had been widely anticipated because of the case’s potential implications for UK businesses with overseas supply chains. The case had been scheduled for 2027.
Settlement
- On 26 February, the parties announced they had settled the case. The terms of the settlement, including the amount, have not been disclosed. Leigh Day has stated: “This settlement is not an admission of liability on the part of the Defendants”.
- Leigh Day’s public statement on the settlement gives very little detail beyond confirming the case has been settled and reiterating that the defendants deny liability. The firm stated that the settlement reflects the cost of continuing the case and the benefits of settling
- In a public statement on 27 February 2026, migrant worker rights specialist Andy Hall welcomed the settlement but stated that it appears to involve only a small number of the workers allegedly affected by forced labour at ATA IMS Bhd. Hall also stated that, to his knowledge, Dyson has not established a compensation fund to remediate other affected workers who are not part of the case or its settlement. We have not confirmed this claim with Leigh Day.
Case Background
- In November 2022, law firm Leigh Day filed a claim against two Dyson UK entities and Dyson Malaysia on behalf of 24 migrant workers from Nepal and Bangladesh. The workers alleged exploitative and unsafe conditions at a Malaysian factory owned by ATA Industrial, a former Dyson supplier.
- Key allegations included several ILO forced labour indicators, including
- Payment of recruitment fees
- Wages below the legal minimum
- Excessive overtime
- Retention of passports
- Overcrowded and unsanitary accommodation, with up to 80 people per room
- Restrictions of movement enforced by security personnel
- One former worker alleged that he was taken to a police station by ATA officials, questioned about sharing information with activists, and beaten by police. He subsequently fled Malaysia
- The claimants alleged that Dyson was aware of conditions at the factory from at least November 2019, two years before it ended its contract with ATA in November 2021. They further argued that human rights risks to migrant workers in the region were well documented, and that Dyson should have been aware of the heightened risk.
Jurisdictional Challenge
- In October 2023, the UK High Court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, finding Malaysia to be the appropriate forum. It concluded that the alleged mistreatment took place in Malaysia and that the claimants could expect adequate access to justice there.
- In November 2024, the UK Court of Appeal overturned this decision. It found that the main defendants were UK-based, that the claimants were in a better position to pursue the case in England, and that English courts are well equipped to apply Malaysian law. In May 2025, the UK Supreme Court dismissed Dyson’s further appeal, confirming that the case would be heard in England.
- The Supreme Court’s decision is significant for UK supply chain litigation. It confirms that UK courts can accept jurisdiction involving alleged harm at oversees suppliers, building on earlier cases such as Vedanta v Lungowe. Questions of UK jurisdiction in supply chain cases had previously been uncertain, with courts declining jurisdiction in cases like James Finlay in Scotland.
Additional Context
- The case was notable for two reasons beyond the jurisdictional question. First, it concerned a supplier rather than a subsidiary, whereas most similar cases involve parent companies being sued for the actions of their overseas subsidiaries. Second, the merits would have been decided under Malaysian law, which shares common ground with English common law, meaning any ruling could have shown how English courts might approach duty of care in these cases. The settlement means these will not be tested at trial.
- We cover the case in full detail in our Notable Litigation Briefing. Reach out to Jasmin Hansohm (Jasmin.Hansohm@duediligence.design) for more information.