ESG Enforcement Tracker

Key facts:

In December 2024, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision declining to exercise jurisdiction in England against English and Malaysian companies within the Dyson group.

Nepalese and Bangladeshi migrant workers brought claims against three companies in the Dyson group. They claimed that they had been trafficked to Malaysia, and subjected to forced labour, in “exploitative and abusive working and living conditions” manufacturing parts in the Dyson group supply chain.

The claimants served proceedings on behalf of a group of migrant workers against the three defendants in England. The first two defendants were English companies (collectively “Dyson UK”), and the third was “Dyson Malaysia”. All three defendants challenged the claim on the basis of forum non conveniens – that England was not the proper place to bring the claim.

In July 2023, the High Court concluded that Malaysia was the more appropriate forum for the claims to be heard, and that there was no real risk of the claimants being unable to access justice there.

In overturning the decision, the Court of Appeal pointed to errors made by the High Court, including failures to consider:

• that Dyson UK was domiciled in England;
• that the “centre of gravity” of the case was England, instead emphasising the location of the alleged underlying offending (being in Malaysia);
• that the defendants’ defence would be conducted from England for Dyson UK; and
• Incorrectly assessed practical challenges alleged by the defendants if the case were to be tried in Malaysia, such as inadequate funding and remote participation.

The Court of Appeal’s evaluative assessment found that “England clearly and distinctly [was] the appropriate forum in which the case should be tried”. The Court of Appeal noted several factors pointing in favour of the claim being heard in England, such as funding, the domicile of the parties, practical convenience, that the litigation would be coordinated and conducted in London, and the equality of arms.

The Dyson decision demonstrates that UK-based defendants may be increasingly challenged in resisting English court jurisdiction over transnational claims. Arguments that any alleged offending did not occur in England and therefore should not be heard in the jurisdiction of UK courts, will be balanced in an evaluative assessment of the appropriate forum for the case to be tried.