Dyson settled lawsuit brought by migrant workers over claims of abusive working conditions
Written by Madeleine Clarke - 5 March 2026
Migrant workers, who were allegedly subjected to forced labour and abuse at a Malaysian factory, have settled their lawsuit against the electronics appliance manufacturer, Dyson for treatment they claim amounted to modern slavery.
The claim was brought by 24 workers from Nepal and Bangladesh and included one worker who died and whose estate acted on their behalf. The claimants sought to sue Dyson Technology Ltd, Dyson Ltd and a Malaysian subsidiary in 2022.
The claimants worked for a third-party at factories in Malaysia, owned by ATA Industrial (M) Sdn Bhd and its related entities, and made parts for Dyson products. They claimed that they were threatened, beaten, and forced to work long hours in unsanitary conditions, including working over 12 hours without bathroom breaks. They also asserted that they had money unlawfully deducted from their wages and had their passports taken away. In other words, they claim they were subjected to modern slavery.
Dyson denies the claimants’ allegations and any liability. When the case was brought, the company said it had been previously unaware of the alleged abuses. It also said the Malaysian supplier should be held responsible instead of Dyson.
The outcome of the case comes after a back and forth in the courts over whether the case should be heard in England or Malaysia, due to the fact that the supplier for the parts resides in Malaysia, whilst the company itself is British.
Dyson argued that the case should be heard in Malaysia, but in December 2024, the UK Court of Appeal ruled that the lawsuit could be heard in the UK. Dyson then appealed this verdict but once again its argument was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The trial of claims was set to be heard in London’s High Court in April 2027.
However, a settlement was reached between the claimants and Dyson last month. A statement on Leigh Day’s (the claimant’s representatives) website says: “This resolution was reached in recognition of the expenses of litigation and the benefits of settlement.” It also states: “This settlement is not an admission of liability on the part of the defendants.”
Under the terms of the settlement, the details around the compensation awarded to the claimants are not to be disclosed.
This case is significant because it establishes the legal precedent for allegations against foreign companies supplying British manufacturers to be judged in an English court. This means British companies could be held legally responsible in England for the actions of their overseas suppliers.