A long-running legal battle alleging forced labour in the supply chain of global technology firm Dyson will now be heard in the English High Court, with trial scheduled for April 2027.

The case stems from civil negligence and unjust enrichment claims brought by 24 former migrant workers who say they were subjected to forced labour, false imprisonment, and abusive conditions while manufacturing components for Dyson products within factories owned by Taiwan based ATA Industrial and Jabco Filter System in Johor, Malaysia.

Dyson has consistently denied liability, rejecting responsibility for the alleged unlawful acts of its suppliers and maintaining it conducted investigations in 2019 that did not substantiate claims of abusive practices. The company ended its supplier relationship with the Malaysian factories in 2021 following internal audits and a whistleblower complaint. 

In a judgment handed down on 14 January, Mr Justice Pepperall in the High Court ordered that the claims of six lead claimants will be heard at trial beginning in April 2027, with liability determined on their specific evidence first, and potential compensation and issues relating to the remaining claimants to be decided in a separate follow-up hearing.

The ruling follows a series of procedural victories for the mainly Nepalese and Bangladeshi workers, including the UK Supreme Court’s refusal in May 2025 to overturn a Court of Appeal decision confirming the claims can be heard in London. 

This week, the High Court ordered Dyson to disclose certain “known” documents referenced in now discontinued defamation claims brought against Channel 4 News and ITN regarding news reports on the allegations of forced labour in the company’s supply chain.

These documents include minutes of meetings between Dyson and ATA in 2021; factory audit reports by Dyson and third-party auditors between 2019 and 2021; correspondence from Dyson’s chief legal officer to ATA; and requests from Dyson for factory employees to work on rest days to maximise production volumes.

The case has already set important legal precedent. In 2023 the High Court held that the case should be heard in Malaysia rather than England after Dyson, which now has its headquarters in Singapore, challenged the right of the English courts to hear the claims. 

Dyson, then represented by Baker McKenzie, argued there was insufficient connection to the UK for the case to be heard in England, pointing to the fact that any alleged wrongdoing by its suppliers happened in Malaysia and that local law would apply. 

However, the Court of Appeal in late 2024 ruled that the English courts were the proper jurisdiction. The appeals court made clear that English companies whose operations cause damage abroad can be held to account in the country where they are based.

The lawsuit is brought against three Dyson companies within the Dyson Group: Dyson Technology Limited and Dyson Limited, based in Malmesbury in Wiltshire, and Dyson Malaysia in Johor Bahru near to the ATA Industrial and Jabco factories.

The court added that substantial inequality of resources between the parties in other countries will be considered when deciding whether to allow claims to proceed.

Leigh Day, representing the migrants, says it has been contacted by “hundreds” of other potential claimants.

“The claimants’ position has been strengthened by this judgment, as has access to justice in England and Wales generally,” said Leigh Day’s Oliver Holland.

“The High Court has recognised the importance of an equality of arms in this case. This ruling helps protect the ability of our clients, who the High Court acknowledged are among the world’s poorest workers, to participate equally in a fair trial of their claims.

“We are keen to work with the courts to see this case progressed promptly and will work as efficiently as we can to achieve speedy justice for our clients.”

The migrants worked in the two offending factories at various periods between 2012 and 2022. They allege experiencing forced labour, false imprisonment, assault, battery, cruel and degrading treatment, as well as exposure to extremely hazardous working and abusive living conditions. 

The group’s lawsuit describes employee housing as “degrading and insanitary” with up to 80 workers housed per room. They claim the water supply was infrequent, toilets and washing facilities were filthy and broken, and food was inedible. Despite this, the workers say they were forced to pay for the accommodation.

Dyson is now represented by Slaughter and May.