Key Facts
- •Dhan Kumar Limbu and 23 other migrant workers (Claimants) sued Dyson Technology Limited, Dyson Limited (both domiciled in England), and Dyson Manufacturing SDN BHD (domiciled in Malaysia) (Defendants).
- •Claimants allege forced labor and exploitative conditions at a Malaysian factory manufacturing Dyson products.
- •Defendants argued Malaysia is the proper forum, while Claimants argued England is more appropriate.
- •Claimants allege negligence, false imprisonment, intimidation, assault, battery, and unjust enrichment against Defendants.
- •Defendants also face a defamation suit from Channel 4 News regarding the allegations.
- •Defendants offered undertakings to facilitate proceedings in Malaysia if the English court declined jurisdiction.
- •Extensive evidence (over 10,000 pages) was submitted, including expert reports from Malaysian legal professionals and witness statements from various parties.
- •Claimants are extremely poor and lack the resources to pursue the case in Malaysia.
Legal Principles
Forum non conveniens
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1987] 1 AC 460
Access to justice
Vedanta Resources plc [2020] AC 1045, Connelly v RTZ Corpn plc (No 2) [1998] AC 854, Lubbe and Others v Cape Plc [2000] 1 WLR 1545
“Substantial justice”
Vedanta Resources plc [2020] AC 1045
Malaysian Law on Contingency Fees
Section 112(1)(b) of the Malaysian Legal Profession Act 1976
Outcomes
Stay of proceedings against D1 and D2 granted.
Malaysia is the clearly more appropriate forum due to the location of the alleged wrongs, applicable law, and evidence. While the risk of irreconcilable judgments with the defamation case is a concern, it doesn't outweigh the other factors favoring Malaysia.
Order granting service on D3 set aside.
Consistent with the decision to stay proceedings against D1 and D2, as Malaysia is deemed the more appropriate forum for all defendants.