Dyson settles. From supply chain risk to financial liability…

Background

On 26 February 2026, law firm Leigh Day and Dyson announced that they had reached a settlement in relation to the case of ‘Dhan Kumar Limbu and others v Dyson Technology Limited, Dyson Limited and Dyson Manufacturing Sdn Bhd’. The announcement followed a case management conference held in December 2025, in respect of which a ruling was handed down on 14 January 2026.

By way of reminder, the claim was brought on behalf of 24 Nepalese and Bangladeshi migrant workers, who were suing Dyson in the English courts over human rights abuses that they claimed to have suffered whilst working at Malaysian factories within Dyson’s supply chain. Claims included trafficking, forced labour, abusive working and living conditions, and, in some cases physical mistreatment. Dyson denied liability.

First filed in November 2022, the claim was seen as a test case for the development of human rights law and supply chain risk in the UK. Whilst the case will no longer go to court (which had been scheduled for April 2027), this now-concluded story is replete with warnings and lessons for businesses that do not understand the very real legal and financial risks inherent in poor supply chain management.

The settlement “is not an admission of liability on the part of the Defendants”, but was, according to the press release, reached “in recognition of the expenses of litigation and the benefits of settlement”.

An unwinnable case?

On one view, this case was essentially unwinnable for Dyson.

• Legal fees: Costs associated with litigation of this nature generally run at a rate of (at least) six figures per month. It was generally accepted that, even if they won at trial, Dyson were unlikely to recover anything of significance from the claimants, who were nonetheless given permission to proceed with their claim given the seriousness of the issues raised. The reality was that, win or lose, this case was going to cost Dyson many millions of pounds.

• The risks of disclosure: On 27 January 2026, I wrote this article, highlighting certain key learnings from the case to that point. In relation to the documents in respect of which early disclosure had been ordered, I wrote: “It is likely that there will be features of many of these documents that are difficult for Dyson. Each of these documents, in due course, will now become part of the public record.” I would speculate that disclosure never took place, and that – faced with the reality of disclosing whatever was contained therein – Dyson took the view that they were either unlikely to win at trial, or that the public scrutiny which would come with any such trial was not worth the reputational risk – whatever the eventual outcome.

• Avoiding the spotlight: The adage “all publicity is good publicity” does not apply where allegations of human rights abuses are concerned. The Dyson litigation had already garnered significant media attention on mainstream news channels and any trial would no doubt have been subject to detailed coverage and reporting. Whether or not Dyson was on notice of the abuses allegedly being suffered at third-party factories in Malaysia, Dysons’ leadership will have been acutely aware of the reputational risk associated with a public trial – whether or not the claim was successfully defended.

As the outcome of the Dyson case powerfully demonstrates, the moment a claim of this nature is given permission to proceed, there is unlikely to be a good outcome for the defendants. This case is a timely reminder that companies should take care to properly manage supply chain risks – particularly with regard to human rights.

Getting human rights, right

So how can companies manage and reduce the human rights risks inherent in complex, global supply chains? A few high-level recommendations are as follows.

• Conduct a careful risk assessment to identify where, within your supply chain, human rights abuses are most likely to occur. Recognising that no organisation has unlimited resources, use the outcome of your risk assessment to guide your focus towards those areas in which greater risks are likely to exist.

• Make sure your organisation has clearly documented policy commitments to protect and respect human rights, prevent abuses of human rights and remedy abuses when they occur, with supporting procedures which make clear how these policy objectives will be achieved in practice.

• Conduct careful due diligence on your supply chain, applying enhanced scrutiny where risks are known or believed to be more prevalent. When engaging with suppliers, ensure that robust contractual clauses mandate a proper focus on protecting and respecting human rights, with clear channels for escalation and reporting where violations are alleged to have occurred.

• Drive a culture of human rights awareness and compliance throughout your organisation, supported by top-level commitment from the Board and embedded throughout your business and supply chain by way of tailored training.

• Make sure that you have appropriate grievance mechanisms set up to receive allegations of abuses. Ensure this is available to and properly publicised throughout your supply chain as far as possible – focusing your efforts, again, where the highest risk is understood to exist.

• Treat human rights compliance as a shared responsibility with businesses throughout your supply chain, sharing learning and expertise to help suppliers improve where needed. Human rights compliance is not an exercise in using contractual clauses to try and ‘offload’ responsibility to third parties. At its best, it is treated as a shared responsibility, with the protection of workers, not corporate reputations, placed firmly at its heart.

Remembering the human in ‘human rights litigation’

When reviewing the outcome of high-profile cases like the Dyson litigation, it can be all too easy to forget about the individuals who sit at the heart of any such claim, and the harrowing circumstances that they are alleged to have endured.

In the case of the Dyson litigation, the lead claimant, Mr Dhan Kumar Limbu, alleged that he:

• paid a recruitment fee;

• was required to work excessive hours for unlawfully low wages without regular rest days without suitable personal protective equipment;

• was forced to live in overcrowded, insanitary and defective accommodation at his own expense;

• had his passport and visa retained by his employer;

• was taken to a local police station where he was interrogated and beaten in the presence of management and then forced into making a false statement about working and living conditions, when he tried to raise his concerns.

Getting human rights compliance right is not just a matter of managing legal, financial or reputational risk. More importantly, it is about protecting vulnerable individuals, who all too often find themselves entrapped in situations of modern slavery and forced labour, in which they inevitably suffer from a compounding downward spiral of human rights abuse.

Conclusion

According to a recent report by the World Benchmarking Alliance: “Fewer than 10% of companies assess human rights risks in their supply chain…”[1] The Dyson litigation is a powerful and timely reminder of the risk inherent in failing to properly assess and manage human rights risks in supply chains. Supply chain risk is legal risk. Supply chain risk is reputational risk. Supply chain risk is financial risk.

Whether or not organisations are on notice of failings within their supply chain, those risks subsist. As the Dyson claim has demonstrated, neither the fact that factories or other facilities were not owned by the company in question or that alleged abuses happened overseas prevents the risk of a claim being filed in the English courts, if English companies are alleged to have benefited.

Businesses should take the time to understand and risk assess their supply chains, to ensure that workers involved in manufacturing products for their benefit are operating in an environment which respects and protects their human rights.

Do you need support or assistance with your human rights compliance programme? Are you concerned about the proper management of supply chain risk?

Get in touch with our experts: fortomorrow@genrlaw.com

…

[1] https://www.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/benchmarks/2026-benchmark-hub#benchmark-overview-tab-group–415