In December 2024, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court decision on whether the English courts have jurisdiction to determine the claims against Dyson. The Court of Appeal was concerned the migrant workers, who allege they were subjected to exploitation and abusive conditions while working at factories in Malaysia which produce components used in Dyson products, may not be able to fund and access justice in Malaysia. Despite the factories being owned and run by Malay supply companies, ATA Industrial and Jabco, and the alleged abuse occurring entirely in Malaysia, the Court of Appeal was satisfied there were relevant factors connecting the dispute to England, enabling the claims to continue here. It held the following to be important:

• Two of the three defendants are Dyson entities domiciled in England
• England was the centre of management and operational control of the Dyson group at the relevant time. Policies on ethical practices and modern slavery (being central to the claim) emanated from Dyson's headquarters in England and enforcement of these policies was the responsibility of staff at Dyson UK
• Dyson UK exercised significant control over the supply chain including the Malaysian factories
• Dyson UK's "litigation centre" has the ability to manage and coordinate litigation against the three defendants (including its Malaysian subsidiary)
• Dyson UK had commenced parallel proceedings for defamation. While the action was discontinued pending the appeal in this action, this was a "very power pointer" that England was an appropriate forum for the dispute

The case will now return to the High Court to hear evidence on the workers' allegations of false imprisonment, hazardous conditions and modern slavery between 2012 and 2021 and, if established, the Court will decide whether Dyson is liable for the abuse within its supply chain. 

Dyson denies responsibility for any alleged unlawful acts committed at the Malaysian factories. Dyson severed links with the supply factories in 2021 after receiving the results of its Environmental and Social Responsibility audit and a whistleblower complaint. In issue is Dyson's knowledge of (alleged) abusive practices before 2021 and whether it failed to act.

Significant implications for Corporations and their D&O insurers

The decision is a strong signal that the English courts are willing to assume jurisdiction over claims of abuse made by workers in international supply chains, where there are concerns they may otherwise not obtain justice in the foreign court and the corporate structure suggests the UK entity had significant control over the activities of other entities within in its supply chain.

Multinational corporations must fully investigate their global supply chains and ensure adherence to human rights, labour laws and ethical standards at all times.

Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 obliges UK companies with an annual turnover of £36 million or more to publish a 'Transparency in Supply Chains Statement' outlining their due diligence processes, identifying risks and providing training to staff on modern slavery awareness. These statements must be approved by the board of directors and signed by a director.

It is not enough for large corporations to have transparency statements and mitigation policies without effective oversight, enforcement and the regular monitoring of performance. Transparency statements and policy compliance will be scrutinised by regulators, shareholders and those harmed. Misstatements and non-compliance may result in significant regulatory fines, significant claims for compensation by those harmed, as well as reputational damage. Directors found to have signed erroneous or misleading transparency statements may also find themselves under the spotlight and needing to call on their D&O insurance.