Dyson Forced Labour Case Proceeds To Trial: Key Lessons On Compliance In Global Supply Chains

• Published date: 04 February 2026
• Subject Matter: Corporate/Commercial Law, Employment and HR, Government, Public Sector, Compliance, Corporate and Company Law, Contracts and Commercial Law, Employee Benefits & Compensation, Employee Rights/ Labour Relations, Human Rights
• Law Firm: K&L Gates LLP
• Author: Dylan G. Moses, William D. Semins, Jordan Hawthorne and Hanna Walczak

On 14 January 2026, the UK High Court ruled that claims against Dyson relating to alleged human rights abuses in its global supply chain will proceed to a liability trial in England in April 2027. The alleged harms occurred in Malaysia, where workers employed at Dyson supplier factories claim they were subjected to forced labour, human trafficking, and other grave abuses.

The decision follows a UK Supreme Court judgement in May 2025, which ended a protracted battle over jurisdiction and established England as the appropriate forum to hear the case, rather than Malaysia.

In this alert, we consider the significance of the Dyson decision for businesses with global supply chains, as well as practical steps to ensure effective due diligence and monitoring of suppliers.

Background

The case is brought by a group of migrant workers from Nepal and Bangladesh. They allege that between 2011 and 2012 they were trafficked to Dyson supplier factories in Malaysia, where they suffered, "conditions of forced labour, exploitative and abusive working and living conditions and, in some cases, detention, torture or beating".

The claims encompass three Dyson entities; two domiciled in England, and one domiciled in Malaysia. The claimants argue that the Dyson companies: (1) were contractually in control of the factories' working and living conditions (2) exerted a high degree of control over operations and conditions, and (3) were aware of the forced labour risks. The claims are specifically pleaded as negligence, false imprisonment, intimidation, assault, battery, and unjust enrichment.

Dyson denies the claims. Specifically, it denies that it had any knowledge of the factories' conditions, that it owed a duty of care to the workers, and that it had control over the Malaysian factories as third parties.

The court has ruled that a liability trial against Dyson concerning alleged intimidation, battery, and assault will be heard in early 2027. The claims regarding unjust enrichment will be heard later, on the basis that they rely on establishing the former claims.

It is notable that the ruling requires Dyson to disclose "known" documents concerning its alleged awareness or oversight over the conditions in the factories. This includes minutes of meetings between Dyson and a Malaysian company running the factories.

Significance

The Dyson case confirms that corporates may be litigated against in the United Kingdom for human rights abuses committed in their supply chains/by their...