Harrods’ effort to present itself as a “crusader” for women allegedly abused by Mohamed Al Fayed is delaying 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 who say they were abused by him.
Harrods’ lawyers argue that the Fayeds cannot oversee the claims objectively and should be replaced by independent solicitors. They also say the £118 million estate could become insolvent because of the scale of the damages being sought.
The Fayeds reject the allegations. Al Fayed married Heini Wathen in 1985, and they had Jasmine, Camilla and sons 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. Legal firm KP Law (KPL) is seeking £150 million on behalf of 270 claimants alone. Harrods is also seeking repayment from the estate for compensation it has already paid to former staff members.
Lawyers representing Al Fayed’s family told the High Court that Harrods’ legal action—and the public image it is attempting to create—was frustrating the family’s “active” efforts to resolve survivors’ claims.
They said the Fayeds were receiving advice from professional advisers and personally covering the cost of settlements, expenses they claimed Harrods would seek to deduct from the estate.
Mohamed Al Fayed (second right) pictured with his sons Omar (left) and Karim (second left), his wife Heini Wathen-Fayed (centre) and daughter Camilla Al Fayed (right) in 2010
The hearing before Judge Karen Shuman has highlighted a split among the claimants. More than 80 per cent of survivors, most of whom are represented by KPL, support retaining the family as executors, while claimants represented by other firms oppose the arrangement.
Tracey Angus KC, representing Jasmine, said: “It is plainly not sensible to replace the current representatives with people whom the majority of claimants, through their lawyers, believe would cause further delay and expense.”
Jasmine, a 45-year-old fashion designer, was “startled” by Harrods’ application to remove the executors, Ms Angus said. She also believed the store faced an “immediate” conflict of interest because of its financial stake in the estate.
She added: “My client is concerned that Harrods is portraying itself as a crusader on behalf of claimants when, in reality, the relief it seeks has already delayed the administration of this estate.”
The court previously heard that the estate’s value is held through Levantine Investments Holdings Limited (LIHL), a British Virgin Islands company whose assets comprise a £97 million loan note and £20 million in accrued interest. Lawyers said the firm’s UK assets had a net value of “nil”.
The £97 million is owed to LIHL by Mafco Holdings Ltd, a company registered in Bermuda. Court documents show 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’ application would “delay the resolution of claims” because converting LIHL’s value into cash would require a grant from a court in the British Virgin Islands.
“All of this is creating additional expense and delay. We need to allow the first and second defendants to 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 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 claims.
The 71-year-old Finnish socialite sat only a few feet from some of the women who allege they were targeted by her husband. Her barrister, Stephen Moverley Smith KC, said statements filed with the court showed that her earlier position “no longer represents her considered view”.
He said: “You will also have in mind the fact that these views were readily understandable after her husband’s death.”
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 that her husband abused them
Penelope Reed KC, representing Harrods, rejected the suggestion that the store was causing delays. She said the Fayeds should be removed as executors because of “special circumstances”.
Ms Wathen-Fayed and her daughters could not handle settlements objectively, Ms Reed argued, claiming that KPL had received “preferential treatment” during settlement discussions compared with other legal firms.
Ms Reed said: “We are not wedded to our candidates. We did not select them because we thought we might get an easy ride; we selected them because of their status.
MORE ON THIS: Who Is Cooper Ouellette? CT Trial Explained
“If other candidates are proposed and they are independent, professional administrators, that is not something we would oppose.”
Mr Moverley Smith, who also represents 41-year-old Camilla, said the Fayeds had acted “entirely dispassionately” and were actively engaging with claimants.
He accused law firm Leigh Day of “hindering” the process by refusing to agree to a memorandum of understanding on behalf of its 60 clients. Such a document would set out the basic terms of any settlement and help negotiations progress.
Leigh Day is not directly involved in the dispute over the estate. However, its partner Richard Meeran told Our News Outlet after Wednesday’s hearing that the firm “took the view that participating in the proposed memorandum of understanding was clearly not in our clients’ best interests”.
The family’s lawyers also accused Harrods of conducting a “fishing expedition” after the store sought answers from the estate to 14 questions about LIHL, Mafco and other companies allegedly connected to the Fayeds. A judge ordered the estate to provide only one response.
The companies included Hyde Park Residence Ltd (HPRL), where Ms Wathen-Fayed served as a director until July last year.
Court submissions state that Mr Al Fayed’s nominee shares were transferred to Prestige Properties SA, a company registered in Liechtenstein, in July 2024.
Harrods argues that the Fayeds cannot handle abuse survivors’ claims objectively, an allegation the family denies
Mr Moverley Smith told the court that HPRL was “not something the estate has any interest in” and was “entirely valueless” because it carried £20 million in negative equity.
He said: “Have matters been handled properly? The answer is plainly yes.
“You have seen that the executors have confirmed they will be guided by professional advisers on any settlement and that they are acting entirely dispassionately.
“Where necessary, they will seek the court’s guidance. They will do so at their own expense.”
He concluded: “This is an application that should never have been pursued. Harrods has been driven to bring it by the story it has created for the media.
“It was left with the uncomfortable choice of continuing the case or withdrawing the claim under intense public scrutiny.
“Regrettably, it chose the path of macabrism, with support from a handful of firms. The application should be dismissed with costs.”
The KC was briefly rebuked by the judge after referring to those allegedly abused by Al Fayed as “just” five claimants. The exchange prompted one person in the packed courtroom to leave.
Judge Karen Shuman said: “This is a highly unusual case, given the large number of complainants, the redress scheme established by Harrods and the role of the executors.
“It concerns me that there should be any delay in moving this matter forward.”
The court previously heard that Al Fayed’s son Omar is challenging an amendment to his father’s will, which 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 offered payments of up to £385,000 from a fund initially valued at £60 million.
Harrods says more than 250 people have engaged with the scheme and that, by last month, over 110 had received compensation. Written submissions to the High Court indicate that £6.1 million 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 being administered.
The hearing is expected to conclude tomorrow.
