Marie Louise Kinsler KC and Tom Fairclough success on jurisdiction dispute in the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in Limbu and ors v Dyson Technology Ltd and ors [2024] EWCA Civ 1564 (the Court has also provided a press summary) the latest in a line of cases dealing with forum (non) conveniens. The Court of Appeal allowed the Claimants’ appeal and reversed the widely discussed decision of the High Court ([2023] EWHC 2592 (KB)).

The Claimants are impoverished migrant workers from Bangladesh and Nepal. They allege that they were trafficked to Malaysia, where they were subjected to forced labour and exploitative and abusive living and working conditions (and, in the case of some of them, detention, beatings and torture) while employed by two Malaysian companies (ATA Industrial (M) Sdn Bhd and Jabco Filter System Sdn Bhd) which manufactured components and products in the supply chain of the Dyson Group. The Claimants have brought claims in tort and unjust enrichment against three companies within the Dyson Group: two are domiciled in England; the third is domiciled in Malaysia.  The claims allege that the Defendants are legally responsible for the abuse and exploitation which the Claimants were allegedly subjected to during their employment by ATA and Jabco (which are not part of the Dyson Group). The Defendants deny that they are responsible for any of the Claimants’ alleged exploitation, abuse or mistreatment.  The Defendants deny any liability to the Claimants and have stated that they intend to defend the claims vigorously.

In October 2023, the High Court held that Malaysia was the more appropriate forum for the claims to be heard and that there was no real risk that the Claimants would be unable to access justice there.  The High Court therefore ordered that the claims could not proceed in England. In a judgment delivered on 13 December 2024, the Court of Appeal (the Master of the Rolls, Popplewell LJ and Warby LJ) unanimously allowed the Claimants’ appeal against that determination.  The Court of Appeal held that the High Court’s judgment involved multiple errors of principle and reached conclusions which were plainly wrong.  The Court of Appeal went on to hold that, contrary to the conclusion reached by the judge, England is clearly the more appropriate place for the case to be tried.  In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeal held (amongst other things) that the domicile of the Defendants, the location of the issues in the case, practical convenience and equality of arms all favour a trial in England. The Court of Appeal also held that, in view of the Claimants’ extreme poverty, there was a serious risk that they would be unable to bring claims in Malaysia.  The Court of Appeal therefore ordered that the claims should continue in the English courts.

Marie Louise Kinsler KC led Edward Craven (Matrix) and Tom Fairclough (instructed by Leigh Day) in acting for the successful Claimants/Appellants.