- with Finance and Tax Executives
- in United States
- with readers working within the Construction & Engineering industries
On 14 January 2026, the UK High Court ruled that claims against Dyson relating to alleged human rights abuses in its global supply chain will proceed to a liability trial in England in April 2027. The alleged harms occurred in Malaysia, where workers employed at Dyson supplier factories claim they were subjected to forced labour, human trafficking, and other grave abuses.
The decision follows a UK Supreme Court judgement in May 2025, which ended a protracted battle over jurisdiction and established England as the appropriate forum to hear the case, rather than Malaysia.
In this alert, we consider the significance of the Dyson decision for businesses with global supply chains, as well as practical steps to ensure effective due diligence and monitoring of suppliers.
Background
The case is brought by a group of migrant workers from Nepal and Bangladesh. They allege that between 2011 and 2012 they were trafficked to Dyson supplier factories in Malaysia, where they suffered, "conditions of forced labour, exploitative and abusive working and living conditions and, in some cases, detention, torture or beating".
The claims encompass three Dyson entities; two domiciled in England, and one domiciled in Malaysia. The claimants argue that the Dyson companies: (1) were contractually in control of the factories' working and living conditions (2) exerted a high degree of control over operations and conditions, and (3) were aware of the forced labour risks. The claims are specifically pleaded as negligence, false imprisonment, intimidation, assault, battery, and unjust enrichment.
Dyson denies the claims. Specifically, it denies that it had any knowledge of the factories' conditions, that it owed a duty of care to the workers, and that it had control over the Malaysian factories as third parties.
The court has ruled that a liability trial against Dyson concerning alleged intimidation, battery, and assault will be heard in early 2027. The claims regarding unjust enrichment will be heard later, on the basis that they rely on establishing the former claims.
It is notable that the ruling requires Dyson to disclose "known" documents concerning its alleged awareness or oversight over the conditions in the factories. This includes minutes of meetings between Dyson and a Malaysian company running the factories.
Significance
The Dyson case confirms that corporates may be litigated against in the United Kingdom for human rights abuses committed in their supply chains/by their suppliers, even where the alleged harm was committed overseas.
The case builds on the principles established in recent cases, where the UK Supreme Court held that a UK parent company may owe a duty of care to individuals harmed through an overseas subsidiary where it had a sufficient level of control. While the question of Dyson's actual liability will be determined at trial, the message across all three cases is clear—geographic distance from harm will not necessarily protect a company from liability in the United Kingdom.
Over the past decade, the United Kingdom's approach to human rights violations in supply chains has evolved significantly. It began with the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, which requires companies of a certain size and turnover to publish an annual statement setting out steps taken to prevent slavery/trafficking in their operations and supply chains. However, the act is focused on transparency, with no obligation to take preventative measures, and no meaningful penalties for noncompliance. This has led to mass criticisms on its effectiveness in driving meaningful human rights compliance. The Dyson case marks a step change, with the courts willing to accept jurisdiction and examine litigation alleging abuses in supply chains.
Additionally, the UK Court of Appeal ruling in World Uyghur Congress v NCA [2024] EWCA Civ 715 recognises that the proceeds from goods produced under forced labour may give rise to UK money laundering offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA). It may not be sufficient to rely on the premise that the goods were sold for "adequate consideration" as an absolute defence under POCA. It follows that, if Dyson were found to be liable for the alleged abuses in its Malaysian supply chains, the proceeds from goods manufactured in the factories where the abuses took place may amount to the proceeds of crime.
Advice to Corporates
Defence of such claims involves vigilance and proactive collection of data. UK companies should apply adequate scrutiny to their business operations and exercise sufficient oversight over their supply chains, wherever they are in the world, in order to mitigate the risk of human rights abuses, across jurisdictions and legal regimes. From the UK Modern Slavery Act to the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act, to the US Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, to the French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law, it is more important than ever to establish a unified framework for addressing relevant human rights and supply chain transparency requirements. Failure to do so may leave them open to litigation, as well as reputational, commercial, and criminal risk.
Below are a number of practical steps companies might consider:
Build a Compliance Framework
Develop a human rights policy statement consistent with the company's values, supported by a mandatory supplier code of conduct that flows these standards down to suppliers. Create a recordkeeping system for tracking all necessary documents. Appoint a policy administrator to monitor compliance with supplier code of conduct, engage independent auditors as needed to verify supplier compliance, and train employees and agents working with suppliers to recognise and report "red flags". Establish metrics to evaluate performance over time. For companies with a complex corporate structure, this also includes ensuring compliance by overseas subsidiaries.
Contractual Obligations
Insert language into supply chain contracts requiring business partners to ensure human rights compliance and labour safety in accordance with UK law. Key obligations include, for example, (1) compliance with supplier code of conduct, (2) targeted representations regarding forced labor and identifiable risk factors, (3) flowdown of compliance standards to next tier suppliers, (4) document/data flow to establish supply chain transparency over time and commitment to gathering documents tier-by-tier to establish reasonable assurance of compliance, (5) periodic compliance certifications, (6) timely notification of compliance incidents, (7) implementation of remedial action plan if forced labor is discovered or reported, (8) cooperation, including with due diligence and data requests, and (9) periodic, independent compliance audits.
Supply Chain Mapping
Identify names, locations, products/component parts/raw materials, starting with direct suppliers and enlisting their support in developing upstream data.
Conduct Regular Risk Assessments
Focus, for example, on the following risk factors: (1) geographic risks, including data to establish reasonable certainty regarding country of origin of component parts and raw materials; (2) operational/industry risks and the extent to which materials are sourced from high-risk industries; (3) transactional risks, such as price for inputs relative to market rates and whether inputs are associated with forced labour (e.g., based on open-source review; and (4) third-party risks, including higher-risk suppliers' reputation for ethics and integrity, commitment to human rights accountability, willingness to cooperate with information requests.
Perform Commercially-Reasonable and Risk-Based Due Diligence on Highest Risk Suppliers and Sub-suppliers Based on the Results of a Tailored Risk Assessment
Such enhanced due-diligence strategies to mitigate these risks can include, for example, open-source review of highest risk suppliers, watchlist and litigation searches, and identification of ultimate beneficial owners.
Collect and Maintain Clear and Complete Records
Written records help to evidence monitoring and oversight of supply chains. As the Dyson case shows, they can also be requested by the court. Such documentation might include, for example; (1) a detailed description of the supply chain, including any step of the sourcing, manufacturing, or processing of goods in third countries; (2) documentation of the roles of the entities involved at each stage of the supply chain, as well as the relationship between the entities (e.g., whether a supplier is also a manufacturer); (3) auditable documentation demonstrating the origin and control of each raw material or component part, including, for example, detailed importer statements, certificates of origin, supplier affidavits regarding the sources of product inputs, import/export records, customs entry documents, freight forwarder notices, dock or warehouse receipts for both the seller and buyer, shipping records, packing lists, and bills of lading; (4) transaction details, such as relevant portions of supply contracts, purchase orders, production orders, bills of materials, and invoices; (5) foreign transportation documents, including documentation of transshipments of the product, component parts, and raw materials; (6) factory reports including site visit reports, and production capacity reports; and (7) documents related to worker and factory conditions, including documented wage payment, production output per worker, and evidence showing the worker was recruited and is working voluntarily.
Escalation and Remedial Action Plans
Establish clear and confidential channels for escalation where an issue is identified, take whistleblowing claims seriously, and remediate supplier risks or terminate noncompliant suppliers as incidents are reported.
Concluding Remarks
The Dyson decision shows that global supply chains are under greater scrutiny than before and that there are more avenues for serious legal and reputational exposure for human rights issues than ever before. It is therefore vital that organisations take a robust and proactive approach to ethical supply chain risk management, especially with respect to contract manufacturers and other tier 1 suppliers in high-risk regions for forced labour.
Our experienced team can help you understand where your risk lies and assist you in establishing procedures to mitigate it. If you have any questions or would like to further discuss how you can improve your compliance, please do not hesitate to contact the authors listed above.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
