Yesterday, the court rejected Dyson’s application, agreeing with the Court of Appeal’s decision last December that the claims by migrant workers could proceed in the UK.
The Supreme Court said the appeal did not raise an issue of general legal importance.
Law firm Leigh Day, representing the workers, said the ruling removes the final obstacle preventing the claims from moving forward.
The High Court will now hear evidence on allegations of modern slavery and false imprisonment at factories supplying Dyson and decide whether the company is legally responsible for human rights abuses in its supply chain.
Leigh Day said the decision sets a strong precedent, making it harder for UK-based companies to avoid legal action in England for human rights, labour, or environmental abuses abroad. It said the judgment reinforces the role of English courts as a leading forum for holding UK companies accountable for overseas operations.
The 24 workers, originally from Nepal and Bangladesh – one of whom has since died – sued Dyson Technology Ltd, Dyson Ltd and a Malaysian subsidiary in 2022. They worked for ATA Industrial or its sister company, producing Dyson components.
Their lawyers allege that the workers had wages unlawfully deducted and were sometimes beaten for failing to meet production targets. The lawsuit claims Dyson was ultimately responsible.
Dyson denied the allegations and argued that the case should be heard in Malaysia, where the alleged abuses took place and Malaysian law applies. Dyson’s Malaysian subsidiary ended its contract with ATA in 2021.
In 2023, the High Court in London initially ruled that the claims should be pursued in Malaysia. But the Court of Appeal overturned that decision, ruling London was “clearly and distinctly the appropriate forum”. The appeals court also affirmed that English companies can be held accountable in the UK for harm caused abroad.
Claimant Dhan Kumar Limbu welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision. “We believe we were treated appallingly and forced to endure terrible conditions. The English justice system has allowed our voices to be heard. We now hope to achieve justice,” he said.
Andy Hall, an independent migrant workers’ rights advocate, called the ruling a hopeful sign for vulnerable workers seeking accountability from multinational companies.
“This decision sends a strong message: companies can’t avoid responsibility by outsourcing to countries where migrant workers struggle to access justice,” Hall said. “Despite long delays, the UK justice system hasn’t disappointed these workers.”