Quick Take

UK Courts: Migrant Suit Against Dyson to Proceed to Trial

Isabelle Glimcher

February 12, 2026

A recent UK High Court ruling has established a potentially groundbreaking pathway to remediation for workers harmed in sprawling international supply chains connected to a UK parent company. The court will hear a full liability trial on alleged human rights abuses committed against migrant workers in Malaysia as part of the supply chain of Dyson, the British home appliance manufacturer.

The suit was brought by migrant workers from Nepal and Bangladesh who allege that they were trafficked to Dyson supplier factories and subjected to forced labor, “exploitative and abusive working and living conditions,” and for some, “detention, torture or beating.” While their direct employers were Malaysian companies, the migrants assert that Dyson companies in the UK and Malaysia controlled the living and working conditions, were aware of the forced labor risks, and failed to act.

On January 16, 2026, the court ordered Dyson to produce documents indicating the nature of the relationship between Dyson and the Malaysian contractors, including meeting minutes, audit reports, correspondence, and alleged “pre-approvals and requests from Dyson for … workers to work on rest days to maximise production volumes.” In calling for these disclosures, the Court emphasized they were needed to address the asymmetry between the parties as to what Dyson knew about the working conditions. The migrants allege that Dyson knew of and controlled the situation and is therefore guilty of negligence, false imprisonment, intimidation, assault, battery, and profiting from violation of the law.

Dyson’s response follows a well-established corporate playbook. The company has insisted that it had no knowledge of the factory conditions, that it did not control the Malaysian factories, which were operated by Malaysian contractors, and that it owed no “duty of care” to the workers in the factories producing goods for its supply chain.

For years, companies have used similar tactics to distance themselves from responsibility—and attendant potential liability—for working conditions across their supply chains. This rejection of responsibility is perhaps most prevalent in subcontracting arrangements, with many companies insisting that they have no knowledge of or responsibility for the conditions in those factories.

The Dyson case, however, shows that approach may be wearing thin with courts. At least in the UK. Indeed, in finding that UK courts have jurisdiction over this case, the UK Supreme Court held that a UK parent company could be liable under UK law for workers harmed in their overseas supply chains as long as they have a sufficient level of control. UK companies can no longer avoid liability by creating complex contracting arrangements with contractors and subcontractors and looking the other way.

The full liability trial is set to begin in April 2027. Regardless of the outcome, however, the finding of jurisdiction alone could open the door to similar claims against other multinational companies based in the UK.