Dyson has reached a confidential settlement with a group of migrant workers who had brought a landmark forced labour claim before the High Court in London, bringing an end to a closely watched case concerning alleged abuses within the company’s Malaysian supply chain.

The claim was initiated by more than twenty migrant workers employed by a Malaysian supplier that manufactured components for Dyson products.

The workers alleged that they had been subjected to exploitative working conditions, including excessive overtime, threats and unlawful recruitment fees.

They sought damages in the UK courts, arguing that Dyson, as a British-headquartered company, bore responsibility for oversight of labour practices within its global supply network.

Dyson has consistently denied the allegations and previously said it took labour standards seriously, maintaining that it conducts regular audits and enforces a supplier code of conduct across its operations.

The company did not admit liability as part of the settlement and described the resolution as a pragmatic step to conclude protracted litigation.

The case was regarded as legally significant because it tested whether multinational corporations headquartered in the United Kingdom could be held accountable in British courts for alleged human rights abuses committed by overseas suppliers.

The High Court had earlier ruled that the claim could proceed to trial, rejecting arguments that the case should be heard in Malaysia instead.

That decision was viewed as an important development in transnational corporate accountability law.

Legal experts say the settlement underscores the increasing scrutiny facing global supply chains and the growing willingness of courts to entertain claims tied to overseas labour practices.

The outcome may influence future litigation strategies and corporate compliance approaches, particularly in sectors reliant on complex international manufacturing networks.

While the financial terms of the agreement have not been disclosed, the resolution closes one of the most prominent forced labour cases brought in the UK against a major consumer brand.

The broader debate over corporate responsibility for supply chain conditions, however, is expected to continue as regulators and campaigners press for stronger safeguards and transparency standards.