When supply chain risk becomes courtroom reality - Reflections from the ongoing Dyson human rights litigation

Executive summary

There are many interesting learnings arising from a judgment handed down on 14 January 2026, following a case management conference in December 2025. In this article, we highlight the following:

• Risk of claims multiplying: Since the initial claim was filed in November 2022, several hundred additional workers have come forward, of whom between 70 – 100 are considered to potentially have valid claims. This is a powerful illustration of how allegations of wrongdoing, when given oxygen, can rapidly expose a businesses to expanding legal, financial and reputational risks.

• Recognised indicators of abuse leading to compounding violations of human rights: Many of the alleged abuses, particularly the payment of recruitment fees and retention of paperwork, are well-understood indicators of workers being pushed into situations of forced labour and modern slavery. Evidence from the claimants in this case powerfully demonstrates how, once entrapped in these situations, vulnerable workers can then see violations of their rights compounding over time.

• Disclosure and internal documents: The court has ordered early disclosure of documents including audit reports, meeting records and correspondence. The powerful reminder is that documents of this nature may later become evidence in legal proceedings unless they are properly protected by legal professional privilege.

The Dyson litigation is an important test case in business and human rights law, highlighting that supply chain practices abroad can risk liability at home and reinforcing the need for robust human rights risk assessment, supplier oversight and well-governed engagement and investigation where concerns are identified.

Background

This claim has been brought by or on behalf of twenty-four Nepalese and Bangladeshi migrant workers in respect of working and living conditions in two Malaysian factories manufacturing components for the Dyson supply chain. The claimants allege that they were unlawfully trafficked to Malaysia and that they were subjected to conditions of forced labour, exploitative and abusive working and living conditions and, in some cases, detention, torture and beating in the course of their employment at the factories. Dyson denies any liability.

In December 2024, the Court of Appeal granted permission for the case to be heard in the English courts, dismissing Dyson’s argument that Malaysia would be the more appropriate venue. The parties therefore filed their respective claims and defences during the course of 2025, which led to a case management conference in December 2025.

In this article, we highlight a few key learnings drawn from the litigation so far, drawn from the judgment of Mr Justice Pepperall on 14 January 2026 in respect of the case management conference.

Reflection 1: The risk of claims compounding

As noted above, the claim against Dyson has been brought by or on behalf of twenty-four Nepalese and Bangladeshi migrant workers. However, according to Pepperall J:

“Oliver Holland, the partner with conduct of this claim at Leigh Day, explains that his firm has been contacted by several hundred further migrant workers with potential similar claims against Dyson. Of those, his firm has identified that some 70-100 further workers may have valid claims.” [At para 9.1]

This significant growth in the size of the potential claimant class is a powerful reminder of the compounding nature of risk in cases such as these. No doubt emboldened by the actions of the initial group, dozens of further claimants may now be joined to this case, each of whom is seeking compensation from Dyson if the claim succeeds.

The important reminder is that companies should treat allegations of human rights abuses, both within their own organisation and their supply chain, with the utmost seriousness, as soon as concerns are raised. If one worker’s rights are being abused, it is likely that other workers (and perhaps, many other workers) are also being subject to similar abuse.  That creates significant risks for a businesses, whether the business is aware of them or not.

Reflection 2: The downward spiral of human rights abuses

One of the matters to be determined was whether it would be possible to identify a small number of lead claimants from the class of 24, whose claims could be heard in the first instance.

Pepperall J: “Dhan Kumar Limbu (the First Claimant) would appear to be an obvious choice… He alleges that he paid a recruitment fee; he was required to work excessive hours for unlawfully low wages without regular rest days without suitable personal protective equipment; he was forced to live in overcrowded, insanitary and defective accommodation at his own expense; he was restricted in his ability to leave the factory and accommodation; and his passport and visa were retained by ATA. Importantly, he alleges that he was a whistleblower who was punished for seeking to expose the conditions at the factory. He pleads that he was taken to a local police station where he was interrogated and beaten in the presence of ATA management and then forced into making a false statement about working and living conditions.” [At para 23.3]

Assuming the truthfulness of these claims, Mr Limbu’s awful experience is a powerful example of how vulnerable individuals can become entrapped in situations in which their human rights are abused, and how those abuses can compound, both as they become further entrapped by the unfortunate downward spiral of their circumstances, but also when they seek to raise concerns.

Many of the features alleged by Mr Limbu, particularly the payment of recruitment fees and confiscation of his passport and visa, are well-known indicators of likely human rights abuses and modern slavery concerns. Companies should take robust steps to ensure that these practices are prohibited amongst suppliers (throughout their supply chain) as part of a robust human rights compliance programme which puts protecting workers, not the company and its reputation, at the core of its design.

Reflection 3: Investigate concerns robustly, but carefully

Pepperall J was asked to consider whether Dyson should be ordered to give early disclosure of the following five categories of documents, which Dyson was seeking to resist:

“• Minutes from at least four separate meetings between Dyson and ATA… regarding their ongoing commercial relationship.
• A report from RBA/Elevate… in respect of an audit carried out… in respect of ATA’s factory facilities.
• The reports from five audits carried out by Dyson or on their behalf by Intertek Group plc or its subsidiary…
• Six letters from Martin Bowen, Dyson’s Chief Legal Officer, to ATA…
• The pre-approvals and requests from Dyson for ATA workers to work on rest days to maximise production volumes in October and November 2021.”

[At para 71]

After brief analysis, Pepperall J ultimately ordered that these documents should be disclosed early to “better allow the claimants to assess the defendants’ knowledge of the working and living conditions in the factories and the strength or weakness of their claims” [at para 80.1].

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.

The important reminder for those involved in managing and investigating concerns about potential violations of human rights (or, indeed, other legal requirements) is that, unless they are genuinely subject to the protection of legal professional privilege, documents and records produced as part of an organisation’s investigations are likely to be disclosable in the event of litigation or regulatory investigation. Indeed, if the organisation in question elects to waive privilege (which I have seen happen several times in the course of regulatory investigations), even documents which would have been considered protected at the time they were drafted may ultimately be disclosed.

When engaging in sensitive investigations, careful thought should be given, at the outset, to what is going to be documented, what is better discussed orally (at least in the first instance) and when it might be best to engage external legal counsel to both (i) help preserve the confidentiality of records that are likely to be made; and (ii) encourage a full investigation of serious concerns within the benefit of a legally privileged environment.

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 example of why companies need to take their human rights risk profile seriously, what the consequences can look like where failings are alleged to have taken place, and how the nature of that risk profile can multiply as grievances are given oxygen.

The case also serves as an important reminder of how those in vulnerable positions can see abuses of their rights compound as their situation deteriorates, and the need for organisations to ensure appropriate governance when investigating concerns about potential abuses.

This litigation is seen by many as a test case, which could have significant implications for the future of business and human rights. Regardless of the outcome (which is likely to be several years away) the ongoing and timely reminder for businesses everywhere is that failings in supply chains around the world can present significant legal, financial and reputational risks at home. 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

The trial is currently scheduled to commence in April 2027.

A copy of the judgment of Pepperall J can be accessed here.