Migrant workers have issued a legal claim against a number of Dyson companies for alleged forced labour and abusive working conditions at two factories, owned by the ATA Industrial group in Malaysia.

A group of 24 workers are seeking compensation before the High Court in London after their alleged mistreatment at two factories in Johor, Malaysia, that produce products for the multinational technology firm.

The factories concerned, which also produce goods for other companies, were owned and operated by the ATA group, a local third-party contract manufacturer, and the affected workers were employed by this company.

The claim before the English court is based on “established principles of the laws of negligence and unjust enrichment in circumstances where a UK company can be held responsible for the impact of their operations abroad”, Leigh Day, the law firm acting for the claimants, told IEL. Dyson denies the allegations made against it.

The workers, mainly from Nepal and Bangladesh, worked in the factories at various periods between 2012 and 2022. Dyson ended its contract with ATA in November 2021 over the Malaysian company’s failure to improve working conditions in a timely manner.

The workers allege that there was widespread use of unlawful forced labour within the Johor facilities as well as false imprisonment. They also made claims of systematic exposure to extremely hazardous and abusive working conditions, with little protection against industrial accidents, injuries, and diseases. 

The claimants described their housing, which was also owned by ATA, as “degrading and insanitary” with up to 80 people housed per room.

Additionally, the claimants allege they were denied access to basic amenities, as water supply was infrequent, toilets were filthy and broken, so too were washing facilities, and food was inedible. Despite this, the workers say they were forced to pay for the accommodation.

In a statement, Leigh Day said: “The workers claim Dyson is liable for the breaches of their legal rights due to the company’s knowledge of the alleged unlawful practices at the ATA factory and because of their assumption of responsibility through numerous public statements regarding their policies and procedures for detecting and preventing forced labour and exploitation in their supply chains.”

The claimants also allege that they were required to work shifts of up to 18 hours, paid less than the minimum legal wage, and denied most or all their annual leave.

The action has been issued against Dyson Technology Limited and Dyson Limited, which are UK-incorporated and domiciled companies, and Dyson Malaysia.

In February, a letter before action was sent on behalf of the workers to Dyson, detailing the allegations and seeking compensation. The Dyson companies denied all allegations.

With their claim lodged in the High Court, the claimants are seeking compensation for economic losses due to being paid less than minimum wage, unpaid holiday pay, and unlawful deductions from their wages. They are also looking to be compensated for personal injuries suffered and the loss of liberty.

“Our clients were hopeful that Dyson, a company that holds itself out as being responsible and ethical, would resolve their claims and they would not have to go to court over the matter,” said Leigh Day partner Oliver Holland.

“Despite the huge profits our clients believe that Dyson has made from their suffering, the company was not prepared to resolve the claims and so our clients have now issued their claims at the High Court in England, and they await Dyson’s defence.”

In a statement to IEL, a Dyson spokesperson said: “This opportunistic claim by the law firm Leigh Day, on behalf of 24 of ATA’s employees, should be brought against their employer, ATA, in Malaysia and against its Malaysian managers who are named in the claim as the perpetrators.

“ATA, the employer of the 24 workers, is a substantial company, publicly listed in Malaysia, operating under the supervision of its management, and under the control of its majority shareholders on its Board. ATA manufactured products for a variety of brands in its Malaysian factories, not just Dyson.

“Having been left with no alternative, Dyson terminated its contract with ATA in November 2021. This is the ultimate sanction that any business has over a third-party supplier even though that action may regrettably jeopardise thousands of jobs in Malaysia.”

Libel claims ongoing

In October, the company’s founder, Sir James Dyson, lost a High Court libel claim brought against the UK’s Channel 4 and Independent Television News which, earlier this year, had reported on the plight of the workers in the ATA factory.

Bringing a defamation claim against the news organisations, Sir James alleged the broadcast on 10 February falsely said he and his companies – Dyson Technology and Dyson Ltd – were complicit in the systematic abuse and exploitation of workers. However, in a preliminary hearing, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed the British billionaire’s libel claim.

In his ruling, the judge in charge of the High Court’s Media and Communications list, held: “Only a reader that was hopelessly naive about the way in which global companies like Dyson operate could consider that a single person, its founder, had day-to-day management responsibility for what happened in a manufacturing plant that supplied its product.”

Asked to decide whether the two Dyson companies were referred to in the broadcast, the judge found that two “candidates” identified by the broadcast would be a company trading with ATA and a firm involved in a “PR operation” accused of attempting to hide the alleged abuse.

If Dyson Technology and Dyson Ltd were not the companies referred to, they would not be able to continue the libel claim, the judge concluded.

“It may be possible for Dyson to put forward a revised claim on behalf of the current corporate claimants, or for claims to be brought by other companies in the Dyson group,” Nicklin J said, adding that he had not reached “any concluded view” on the meaning of the programme in relation to the two companies.

Following the ruling, a Dyson spokesperson said: “The judgment concludes that the allegations centre on ATA and are not defamatory in respect of Sir James Dyson. We do, however, maintain that the broadcast made misleading and defamatory allegations against the Dyson companies.”

Malaysia has been forced to address issues of modern slavery after several countries, including the US and Canada, banned certain products from the country over concerns about forced labour.

Editor's note: The first paragraph of this story has been updated to highlight that the factories employing the workers in Malaysia is owned and operated by the ATA Industrial group.