On 1 May, the UK Supreme Court rejected Dyson’s challenge to stop a case brought by migrant workers from being heard in England. The case involves allegations of exploitative and hazardous working conditions at a Dyson supplier. This ruling upholds the UK Court of Appeal’s decision from December 2024, confirming that the case will proceed in England rather than Malaysia.
This decision carries significant legal weight and has broader implications for the evolving body of UK case law on jurisdiction in supply chain litigation. While the UK courts have allowed cases involving harm occurring abroad to be heard in England in cases like Vedanta v. Lungowe (2022), they have declined in others, such as the James Finlay case. As such, the question of whether supply chain cases will be heard in the UK has been unclear. This decision, taken by the Supreme Court, the UK’s highest judicial authority, sets an important precedent that cases can be heard in the UK, even when the alleged harm occurred abroad.
Case background
In November 2022, Leigh Day filed a legal case against two Dyson UK entities and Dyson Malaysia on behalf of 24 migrant workers from Nepal and Bangladesh. The workers claim they faced exploitative and unsafe conditions at a Malaysian factory owned by ATA Industrial, a supplier to Dyson.
The plaintiffs claim they were recruited from Nepal and Bangladesh, paying substantial recruitment fees, receive wages below the legal minimum, work excessive hours, and have their passports confiscated, which restricted their ability to seek other employment. They report living in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions—up to 80 people in a single room—and facing restrictions on their movements by security personnel. One former worker alleges he was taken to a police station by ATA officials, questioned about speaking to activists, and beaten by police before fleeing Malaysia out of fear for his safety.
The workers further allege that Dyson was aware of the factory conditions as early as November 2019 but failed to act, despite terminating its contract with ATA in November 2021. They argue that Dyson should have been aware of the longstanding and well-documented human rights risks faced by migrant workers in the region.
Jurisdictional challenge
On 19 October 2023, the UK High Court dismissed the case on jurisdiction grounds. The Court determined Malaysia to be the appropriate forum to hear the case since this was where the alleged mistreatment took place, and the plaintiffs could expect to receive an adequate level of access to justice.
On 13 November 2024, the UK Court of Appeal overturned the decision and dismissed the High Court ruling. The Court determined that the case could be heard in England because the main defendants were located in the UK, migrant workers were likely to be better represented in the UK, and English courts are well equipped to handle foreign law, particularly Malaysian law which is closely linked to English law.
Dyson appealed the Court of Appeal decision. However, on 1 May, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because it does not “raise a point of law of general public importance”. This means that the court did not find grounds for an appeal of a point of law, and that the Court of Appeal’s findings are consistent with existing law. The Supreme Court is the highest UK Court, so this decision confirms that the case will be heard in the UK. The case will now return to the UK High Court which will examine the case on its merits.