Harrods’ attempt to present itself as a “crusader” for women allegedly abused by Mohamed Al Fayed is instead holding up compensation payments, the High Court has been told.
The department store is seeking to remove Al Fayed’s widow, Heini Wathen-Fayed, and his daughters Jasmine and Camilla as executors of his estate, which faces compensation claims from hundreds of women.
Lawyers for Harrods argue that the family cannot handle the claims impartially and should be replaced by independent professional administrators. They also say the estate, valued at £118million, could become insolvent under the scale of damages being sought.
The Fayeds deny the allegations. Al Fayed married Heini Wathen-Fayed in 1985, and the couple had Jasmine, Camilla, Karim and Omar.
He owned Harrods from 1985 until 2010 and died in August 2023 at the age of 94. Allegations that he raped and sexually abused hundreds of women emerged after his death.
More than 300 people are pursuing damages from both the estate and Harrods. Law firm KP Law (KPL) alone is seeking £150million on behalf of 270 claimants. The Knightsbridge retailer is also seeking repayment from the estate for compensation it has already paid to former staff.
Lawyers representing the Al Fayed family told the High Court that Harrods’ legal action, alongside the public image it is promoting, was frustrating the family’s “active” efforts to settle survivors’ claims.
They said the Fayeds were receiving advice from professional advisers and were covering settlement costs themselves—costs Harrods would seek to deduct from the estate.
Mohamed Al Fayed (second right) pictured with his sons Omar (left) and Karim (second left), wife Heini Wathen-Fayed (centre) and daughter Camilla Al Fayed (right) in 2010
The hearing before Judge Karen Shulman has highlighted a split among the women seeking compensation. More than four in five survivors, most of them represented by KPL, support retaining the family as executors, while claimants represented by other firms oppose the arrangement.
Tracey Angus KC, representing Jasmine, said replacing the current representatives would not be practical if most claimants and their lawyers believed the move would create additional delays and expense.
Jasmine, a 45-year-old fashion designer, regarded Harrods’ application to remove the executors as “startling”, the court heard. She believed the store had an immediate conflict of interest because of its financial stake in the estate.
“My client is concerned that Harrods is portraying itself as a crusader on behalf of claimants when, in fact, the relief it is seeking has already delayed the administration of this estate,” Ms Angus said.
The court previously heard that the estate’s value is held through Levantine Investments Holdings Limited (LIHL), a British Virgin Islands company. Its worth is based on a £97million loan note and £20million in accrued interest, while its UK assets have a net value of “nil”, lawyers said.
Mafco Holdings Ltd, a Bermuda-registered company, owes the £97million to LIHL. Court documents state that shares in Mafco were held in a trust established by Al Fayed, who was a beneficiary during his lifetime.
Ms Angus told the court that Harrods would “delay the resolution of claims” if its application succeeded because converting LIHL’s value into cash would require a grant from a court in the British Virgin Islands.
“All of this is causing more expense and delay. We need to let the first and second defendants obtain the BVI grant,” she said.
The court also heard that Ms Wathen-Fayed, who attended Wednesday’s hearing wearing a dark blue suit and a silk scarf, no longer doubts the accounts of those who say they were abused. She had previously told her lawyers that she did “not believe” their allegations.
The 71-year-old Finnish socialite sat only a few feet from some of the women allegedly targeted by her husband. Her barrister, Stephen Moverley Smith KC, said statements filed with the court showed that her earlier view “no longer represents her considered view”.
“You will also have in mind the fact that these views were readily understandable after her husband’s death,” he said.
Heini pictured leaving the High Court in London on Wednesday after the second day of the hearing. She now says she believes those who allege her husband abused them
Penelope Reed KC, representing Harrods, rejected the claim that the retailer was causing delays. She said the Fayeds should be removed as executors because “special circumstances” applied.
Ms Wathen-Fayed and her daughters could not handle settlement negotiations objectively, Ms Reed argued. She also alleged that KPL had received “preferential treatment” during discussions compared with other legal firms.
“We are not wedded to our candidates. We have not chosen them because we might get an easy ride; we have chosen them because of their status,” Ms Reed said.
READ MORE: Democrats Turn Choosin’ Texas Into a ‘Liberal Anthem’
“If other candidates are put forward and they are independent administrators and professionals, that is not something we would stand in the way of.”
Mr Moverley Smith, who also represents 41-year-old Camilla, said the Fayeds had acted “entirely dispassionately” and were engaging actively with claimants.
He accused law firm Leigh Day of hindering progress by refusing to agree to a memorandum of understanding on behalf of its 60 clients. The document would set out the basic terms of any settlement and help move negotiations forward.
Leigh Day is not directly involved in the dispute over the estate. However, its partner Richard Meeran told the Daily Mail after Wednesday’s hearing that the firm had concluded taking part in the proposed memorandum was “clearly not in our clients’ best interests”.
The family’s lawyers also accused Harrods of conducting a “fishing expedition” after the retailer sought answers to 14 questions about LIHL, Mafco and other companies allegedly linked to the Fayeds. A judge ordered the estate to respond to only one of them.
The companies included Hyde Park Residence Ltd (HPRL), where Ms Wathen-Fayed served as a director until July last year.
Court submissions state that nominee shares belonging to Mr Al Fayed were transferred to Prestige Properties SA, a Liechtenstein-registered company, in July 2024.
Harrods says the Fayeds cannot handle abuse survivors’ claims objectively, an allegation the family rejects
Mr Moverley Smith told the court that HPRL was “not something the estate has any interest in” and was worthless in any event because it carried £20million in negative equity.
“Have matters been dealt with properly? The answer is plainly yes,” he said.
“You have seen that the executors will be guided by professional advisers on any settlement and that they are acting entirely dispassionately.”
“Where necessary, they will seek the guidance of the court. And they will do that at their own cost.”
He concluded that Harrods’ application should never have proceeded and had been driven by the public narrative the retailer had created.
“It was left with the uncomfortable choice of continuing the case or withdrawing the claim in the glare of publicity,” he said.
“Regrettably, it chose the course of macabrism, with a smattering of firms supporting it. The case must be dismissed with costs.”
The barrister was briefly reprimanded by the judge after referring to those allegedly abused by Al Fayed as “just” five claimants. The exchange prompted one person in the crowded courtroom to leave.
Judge Karen Shulman said the proceedings were highly unusual because of the number of complainants, the redress scheme established by Harrods and the role of the executors.
“It troubles me that there should be any delay in moving this forward,” she said.
The court has previously heard that Al Fayed’s son Omar is challenging an amendment to his father’s will that replaced him as an executor with Jasmine. Omar supports removing the family as executors, while his brother Karim opposes the change.
The dispute stems from compensation claims brought against Harrods and the Al Fayed estate after the store created a redress scheme for survivors. The scheme offers payments of up to £385,000 from a fund initially valued at £60million.
Harrods says more than 250 people have engaged with the scheme and that over 110 had received compensation by last month. Written submissions to the High Court indicate that £6.1million has been paid so far.
However, more than 300 other women are pursuing settlements directly after rejecting the scheme because of concerns about how it is administered.
The hearing is expected to conclude tomorrow.