Dyson to face lawsuit over Malaysian factory

Dyson is set to face legal action over its working conditions in Malaysia after a court overturned a decision on jurisdiction, which has now green lit the English High Court.

The legal claims, led by law firm Leigh Day, includes 25 migrant workers who worked at a factory in southern Malaysia, operated by ATA Industrial, where many Dyson products were made.

It is alleged that the migrant workers, from Nepal and Bangladesh, were trafficked to Malaysia and subjected to conditions of forced labour, exploitative and abusive working and living conditions.

Also, in some cases, it was alleged detention, torture and beating in the course of their employment by two Malaysian companies manufacturing components and parts in the supply chain for the Dyson group.

The workers were employees of ATA, in an ATA factory, which predominantly produced products for Dyson’s vacuum cleaner, lighting, haircare, heaters and fan ranges, for between three and nine years.

The claims are against three companies in the Dyson group, two are the Dyson UK companies and the third is the Malaysian subsidiary.

The cases alleged that the Dyson companies are responsible for the alleged abuse of the migrant
workers under various principles of Malaysian law which closely mirror English law.

Dyson maintains that the underlying allegations against it in this case are false.

The issue of jurisdiction was the main issue, which went to a hearing in July 2023, as Dyson argued that since Malaysian law applies and the claimants will have access to justice in Malaysia, the claims should be heard there.

A High Court judge held in October 2023 that Malaysia was the more appropriate place for the action, and stayed the English High Court proceedings.

The claimants, via law firm Leigh Day, took this decision to the Court of Appeal, which today, sided with the workers, granting an appeal.

The three justices held that England is clearly the more appropriate place for the case to be tried, and rules that the proceedings should continue in the High Court.

The court noted that the “inability of the claimants to fund proceedings in Malaysia”, and that the “domicile of the parties favours England”, made England “clearly and distinctly the appropriate forum”.

Separately, Sir James Dyson’s company sued Channel 4 and ITN for libel back in 2022 after its investigation and reporting on conditions in a factory in Malaysia. But after over two years of court proceedings, it was revealed in August that Dyson abandoned its libel case.

Commenting on the case, a Dyson spokesperson said: “This was a procedural hearing to determine where the main case should ultimately be heard. The High Court was right last year in its carefully considered ruling that it should be heard in Malaysia and we disagree with today’s appeal decision.”

“We will be reviewing our legal options but our position has not changed, and we refute the underlying allegations against Dyson. This is a Malaysian case, relating to a Malaysian manufacturer, and we continue to believe that Malaysia is the right jurisdiction,” they added.

While Leigh Day partner Oliver Holland stated: “Our clients are pleased that the Court of Appeal has allowed these claims to proceed.”

“However, they have suffered significant delay due to the defendants’ attempt to prevent the claims being heard in the English courts – they now want their claim to be resolved as soon as possible in the hope that they can get something back for what they lost and move on with their lives,” he added.