In brief
- The Limbu v Dyson claim alleging forced labour in Dyson’s Malaysian supply chain has settled before trial.
- The case raised novel questions about whether UK companies may owe a duty of care to workers in overseas supply chains.
- The Supreme Court’s refusal of Dyson’s forum non conveniens challenge signalled judicial willingness to scrutinise human rights harms abroad.
- The claim also advanced an argument in unjust enrichment, alleging that Dyson effectively profited from exploitation.
- Although Dyson denies liability, the settlement marks an important acceptance of responsibility and may still deliver key outcomes sought through strategic litigation: remedy, accountability, industry change and pressure for legislative reform.
What happened in Limbu v Dyson?
In 2022, twenty four migrant workers from Nepal and Bangladesh brought a claim in the High Court against Dyson. They alleged that, while working between 2011 and 2022 at ATA Industrial and Jabco Filter Systems, two Malaysian factories in Dyson’s supply chain, they were subjected to conditions amounting to forced labour: excessive hours, restrictions on movement, confiscation of passports, hazardous working environments, overcrowded accommodation, unlawful detention, intimidation, assault and torture. Many were recruited and trafficked coercively.
These allegations closely mirror statutory definitions of slavery and trafficking under the Malaysian Anti-Trafficking in Person and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act, the UK Modern Slavery Act, and international treaties including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 4). However, none of these instruments creates direct civil liability.
Victims of modern slavery may instead pursue claims in tort (a civil legal claim for harm or loss) where internal grievance mechanisms fail. English courts have shown a growing readiness to accept jurisdiction over cross‑border tort group actions, including Lungowe v Vedanta, Okpabi v Shell and Mariana v BHP. Crucially, those cases turned on parent‑subsidiary duties of care. By contrast, Limbu v Dyson concerned a commercial supply chain relationship.
The Supreme Court’s refusal of Dyson’s forum challenge (a request to move the case to the Malaysian courts) on 6 May 2025 was therefore significant. It confirmed that allegations against foreign suppliers to UK companies may be heard in England, signalling judicial willingness to scrutinise human rights harms in global supply chains.
The workers brought claims in negligence, alleging Dyson owed and breached a duty of care by exercising significant control over the Malaysian factories, imposing and monitoring supply chain standards, and was aware (or ought to have been aware) of the high risk of forced labour.
The workers also brought a claim in unjust enrichment, arguing Dyson derived financial benefit from the unlawful conditions through reduced production costs. Unjust enrichment claims are rare in supply chain litigation, and this framing adds an important and strategically novel dimension to the case. Had the case gone to trial, it would have raised compelling questions about damages in unjust enrichment, including whether courts could consider the surplus value derived from exploitation or what might constitute a reasonable level of profit. The Court might have also considered whether unjust enrichment principles could apply across indirect tiers of a supply chain, as part of a coordinated set of transactions, or single scheme, creating an exception to the usual direct transfer requirement.
A trial date had been set for April 2027. However, following a January High Court decision confirming Dyson could face more than one hundred additional claims, the parties reached a settlement.
Why did Dyson settle?
Settlements arise for various reasons. In this case, Dyson is likely to have considered escalating litigation costs, the risk of an adverse precedent on supply chain duties of care, and reputational scrutiny relating to human rights compliance.
Although Dyson maintains it was unaware of the alleged abuses and that the workers were employed by third-party suppliers, the settlement reflects a pragmatic acceptance of responsibility to provide remediation.
Does responsibility without liability still matter?
Group actions serve four principal aims, each resonating with the impact assessments I would prepare as a business and human rights consultant before joining the Dispute Resolution team at Mishcon de Reya. Whether advising businesses on responsible practices or acting for claimants seeking accountability, the underlying objectives are the same: remedy, accountability, better governance and systemic change. Accordingly, responsibility does matter. Even without a formal finding of liability, Limbu v Dyson demonstrates how a settlement can still deliver these objectives.
How does the settlement support remedy for victims?
Remediation is the primary concern, and Dyson has agreed to compensate the workers. However, Dyson should ensure remedy extends beyond financial payments to include healthcare, trauma support, repatriation assistance and long‑term safeguarding, particularly given the heightened risk of re‑trafficking faced by survivors of modern slavery.
What does this mean for corporate accountability?
Businesses benefit from a fair commercial environment in which those profiting from unlawful or exploitative practices are held to account. Dyson has been challenged and held accountable. Businesses operating across borders and within complex supply chains should now expect similar scrutiny and acknowledge responsibility for the social and environmental impact of their suppliers.
Responsible businesses may also play an active role in accountability measures, whether by resolving issues with suppliers through dispute mechanisms, or more broadly challenging sector wide bad actors through collective action. There is both a moral imperative and strategic benefit to doing so, and we expect businesses will be increasingly involved in bringing these issues to notice either through direct litigation, submitting complaints with the relevant authorities, or supporting mediation efforts.
Could this drive industry‑wide change?
The attention the Dyson case has generated underscores the scale of modern slavery across global supply chains. This scrutiny should accelerate efforts to prevent exploitation and towards meaningful improvements in business practice.
Businesses most engaged in strengthening supplier relationships, improving due diligence and embedding effective governance, will raise industry standards and define responsible business models for the future. This requires an approach grounded in double materiality: not only assessing how the business is impacted by modern slavery risk, but also how the business contributes to that risk.
How might this influence legislative reform?
The Dyson case highlights long identified gaps in the UK’s legal framework and will add further weight to calls to reform. Parliamentary committees, industry bodies and civil society organisations have repeatedly advocated for mandatory human rights due diligence, whether through reform of the Modern Slavery Act or a new Business, Human Rights and Environment Act. The Independent Anti‑Slavery Commissioner’s proposed Forced Labour and Human Rights Bill would meet this call, by imposing mandatory due diligence, introducing forced labour product bans, and establishing liability unless a company can demonstrate reasonable preventive measures.
Recent legislative reform under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, introducing strict liability for failure to prevent offences, reflect a broader shift towards mandatory compliance systems. Businesses might soon therefore be exposed to both criminal and civil liability for due diligence breaches related to forced labour or other human rights or environmental issues in its supply chain.
Across Europe, ESG Omnibus reforms remove civil liability under the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive where the applicable law is not from an EU Member State. However, the EU has begun consultations on forced labour measures that may mirror the UK's proposed approach.
Right, privilege, concern and responsibility
Global supply chains may offer commercial advantage, but with that advantage comes responsibility. With an estimated fifty million people worldwide trapped in modern slavery, and 200,000 in Malaysia alone, the risk that UK businesses inadvertently benefit from, and contribute to, forced labour remains significant.
Business operations do not exist apart from the communities and people who sustain them. The Hawaiian concept of kuleana, meaning right, privilege, concern and responsibility, captures this relationship. In practice, this means a business' licence to operate is inseparable from the obligations it owes to those communities.
Dyson’s settlement does not determine liability, but it affirms something equally important: that responsibility transcends borders, beyond subsidiaries, across commercial relationships and through the web of interconnected supply chains.
How can Mishcon de Reya help?
Mishcon Purpose – our interdisciplinary ESG and sustainability practice – combines expert lawyers and sustainability professionals. By balancing compliance with strategic foresight, we not only help clients to mitigate risk, but also to identify and seize opportunities to lead and benefit from sustainable transition.
Our Dispute Resolution practice has a breadth of capabilities serving businesses and individuals in complex and novel disputes. Our expertise ranges across competition law, commercial litigation, group claims, and strategic environmental and human rights litigation.
To discuss your challenges and ways we can help, get in touch.