A New Approach To Jurisdictional Disputes: The High Court's Decision In Dhan Kumar Limbu & Others V Dyson Technology Limited And Others

• Published date: 27 March 2024
• Subject Matter: Corporate/Commercial Law, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Corporate and Company Law, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Travers Smith LLP
• Author: Ms Heather Gagen, James Hulmes and Harriet Lawrence

• Introduction
• The claim in Limbu
• Overview of the decision
• A new approach to jurisdictional disputes
• Lessons for defendants
• Conclusion

Introduction

1.3 It was against that background that the High Court last year handed down its decision in Limbu & Ors v Dyson Technology Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 2592 (KB) ("Limbu"), in which it declined to exercise jurisdiction over claims made against members of the Dyson Group by 24 migrant workers from Nepal and Bangladesh (the "Claimants") concerning the alleged forced labour practices and similar human rights abuses of its Malaysian suppliers.

1.4 We consider below what this decision signals about the English Courts' willingness to accept jurisdiction in respect of disputes involving transnational torts claims against both English-domiciled and foreign defendants. We also consider what the decision signals about the likely approach of the English Courts to similar value chain liability cases in future.

What is a value chain?

A value chain means the activities related to the production of goods/provision of services by a company. This includes the development and distribution of the product or the service. It also includes the related activities of established upstream and downstream business relationships. Including downstream activities distinguishes the "value chain" from the more familiar concept of "supply chain" which is focused on upstream business relationships.

1.3 It was against that background that the High Court last year handed down its decision in Limbu & Ors v Dyson Technology Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 2592 (KB) ("Limbu"), in which it declined to exercise jurisdiction over claims made against members of the Dyson Group by 24 migrant workers from Nepal and Bangladesh (the "Claimants") concerning the alleged forced labour practices and similar human rights abuses of its Malaysian suppliers.

1.4 We consider below what this decision signals about the English Courts' willingness to accept jurisdiction in respect of disputes involving transnational torts claims against both English-domiciled and foreign defendants. We also consider what the decision signals about the likely approach of the English Courts to similar value chain liability cases in future.

The claim in Limbu

2.1 Limbu concerned claims by 24 Nepalese and Bangladeshi migrant workers employed at factory facilities in Malaysia that manufactured products and components for Dyson-branded products. The Claimants issued proceedings in England against three Defendants that were part of the Dyson group of companies ("Dyson"), referred to as D1, D2 and D3 in the judgment. D1 and D2 were domiciled in England; D3 was domiciled in Malaysia.

1.2 The Claimants alleged that they had been subjected to highly exploitative and abusive conditions while living and working in facilities operated by "ATA/J", Malaysian-domiciled suppliers to Dyson, including various serious breaches of Malaysian labour law, that they were forced to live in insanitary, overcrowded and degrading conditions, and that they were prevented from leaving their accommodation at will. Claimants that sought to expose the abusive working and living conditions were allegedly arrested and assaulted by Malaysian police.

2.3 Dyson did not itself own the relevant facilities or employ the Claimants, but was alleged to be liable for various torts...