Harrods has been accused of slowing down compensation payments to women who allege they were sexually abused by its former owner, Mohamed Al Fayed, while attempting to remove his widow and daughters from control of his £118million estate.
The allegations were raised at the High Court, where lawyers representing the Al Fayed family argued that Harrods’ efforts to present itself as a champion of survivors were obstructing ongoing attempts to settle compensation claims.
The department store wants Al Fayed’s widow, Heini Wathen-Fayed, and daughters Jasmine and Camilla removed as executors of his estate.
It argues that they cannot handle the claims objectively and that independent legal professionals should take over the responsibility.
Harrods has also warned that the estate could become insolvent because of the substantial compensation claims being brought against it.
Hundreds of Women Seek Compensation
More than 300 people are pursuing compensation from the Al Fayed estate and Harrods over allegations of rape and sexual abuse by the late businessman.
Legal firm KP Law (KPL) is seeking £150million on behalf of 270 claimants, while Harrods is also attempting to recover money it has paid to former employees through its own compensation arrangements.
Al Fayed owned Harrods from 1985 until 2010.
He married Heini Wathen-Fayed in 1985, and they had four children: Jasmine, Camilla, Karim and Omar.
The businessman died in August 2023, aged 94.
Allegations that he had raped and sexually abused hundreds of women became public after his death.
The family’s legal representatives told the court that the current executors were working with professional advisers and actively pursuing settlements, with the family covering the associated expenses.
They also argued that Harrods would seek to deduct those payments from the estate.
Majority of Survivors Oppose Replacing the Executors
The High Court hearing has revealed disagreements among the legal teams representing the alleged victims.
More than 80 per cent of survivors, most of whom are represented by KPL, support retaining the Al Fayed family as executors.
However, claimants represented by other legal firms oppose the arrangement.
Tracey Angus KC, representing Jasmine Al Fayed, argued that replacing the current executors would create additional costs and delay the compensation process.
She told the court that removing the family would be inappropriate when the majority of claimants, through their lawyers, believed the proposed change would work against their interests.
Angus also said Jasmine, a 45-year-old fashion designer, was surprised by Harrods’ application and believed the department store had an immediate conflict of interest because of its financial involvement in the estate.
She argued that the store’s public position as a supporter of survivors did not reflect the consequences of its legal actions.
Dispute Over the Estate’s £118million Value
The court also examined the financial structure of Al Fayed’s estate and the difficulties involved in turning its assets into available funds.
The estate’s reported value is held through Levantine Investments Holdings Limited (LIHL), a British Virgin Islands-registered company.
Its valuation is based on a £97million loan note and approximately £20million in accrued interest.
The loan is owed by Mafco Holdings Ltd, a company registered in Bermuda.
Shares in Mafco were held through a trust established by Al Fayed, under which he was a beneficiary during his lifetime.
Lawyers told the court that the estate’s UK assets had a net value of zero.
Angus argued that Harrods’ application could further complicate the compensation process because accessing LIHL’s value as cash would require obtaining a grant from a British Virgin Islands court.
She urged the court to allow the existing executors to secure the necessary authorisation, arguing that the ongoing dispute was creating additional expenses and delays.
Widow Changes Position on Abuse Allegations
Heini Wathen-Fayed, who attended Wednesday’s hearing, has reportedly changed her position on allegations made against her late husband.
The 71-year-old Finnish socialite had previously told her lawyers that she did not believe the accounts of women who said they had been abused by Al Fayed.
However, Stephen Moverley Smith KC, representing Heini and Camilla, told the court that her earlier position no longer reflected her considered views.
He said statements submitted to the court demonstrated that she now believed the women who had come forward.
Moverley Smith also argued that her earlier doubts were understandable in the period immediately following her husband’s death.
Harrods Rejects Allegations of Delaying Settlements
Penelope Reed KC, representing Harrods, denied that the department store was responsible for delaying compensation payments.
She maintained that special circumstances justified removing Heini and her daughters as executors, arguing that they could not approach settlement negotiations objectively.
Reed also alleged that KPL had received preferential treatment during discussions about compensation compared with other legal firms representing survivors.
However, she said Harrods was not insisting on particular replacements and would accept other suitably qualified independent professionals if they were proposed.
She told the court that the department store’s preference was for independent administrators with the appropriate professional standing.
Lawyers Exchange Accusations Over Settlement Agreement
Moverley Smith defended the family’s handling of the claims, insisting that the executors were acting impartially and engaging with survivors.
He also accused law firm Leigh Day of obstructing progress by refusing to sign a proposed memorandum of understanding covering the basic terms of potential settlements.
The document was intended to establish an agreed framework for moving compensation negotiations forward for the firm’s 60 clients.
Although Leigh Day is not directly involved in the dispute over the estate’s administration, its partner Richard Meeran told the Daily Mail that the firm had decided not to participate because it did not believe the proposed agreement served its clients’ interests.
The family’s legal team also criticised Harrods for seeking answers to 14 questions about LIHL, Mafco and other companies allegedly connected to the Al Fayed family.
They described the request as a fishing expedition, noting that the estate had only been required by a judge to answer one of the questions.
One of the companies mentioned was Hyde Park Residence Ltd (HPRL), where Heini had served as a director until July 2025.
Court documents also state that Al Fayed’s nominee shares were transferred to Prestige Properties SA, a company registered in Liechtenstein, in July 2024.
Moverley Smith maintained that HPRL had no connection to the estate and was effectively worthless because of £20million in negative equity.
He insisted that the executors were acting appropriately, relying on professional advice and prepared to seek the court’s direction where necessary.
Family Calls for Harrods’ Application to Be Dismissed
Concluding his submissions, Moverley Smith argued that Harrods’ application should never have proceeded.
He accused the department store of pursuing the case because of the public position it had adopted and argued that it had chosen to continue the legal challenge rather than withdraw it.
He asked the judge to dismiss the application and order Harrods to pay the associated legal costs.
During the hearing, Judge Karen Shulman briefly intervened after the barrister referred to those allegedly abused by Al Fayed as ‘just’ five claimants.
The exchange prompted one person in the packed courtroom to leave.
The judge described the proceedings as highly unusual, given the number of complainants, the compensation scheme established by Harrods and the dispute involving the estate’s executors.
She said she was concerned that there should be no further delay in progressing the claims.
Al Fayed’s Sons Divided Over Executor Dispute
The court had previously heard that Al Fayed’s son Omar was challenging an amendment to his father’s will that removed him as an executor and replaced him with Jasmine.
Omar supports the removal of the family from the executor positions, while his brother Karim opposes the proposed changes.
The dispute comes as hundreds of women continue to pursue compensation following the allegations against the former Harrods owner.
Harrods Reports More Than 110 Compensation Payments
The legal battle is connected to a redress scheme established by Harrods for people who say they were abused by Al Fayed.
The scheme initially had a compensation fund valued at £60million and offered eligible survivors payments of up to £385,000.
Harrods said more than 250 people had engaged with the programme, while figures presented last month indicated that over 110 individuals had received compensation.
Written submissions to the High Court showed that approximately £6.1million had been paid out.
However, more than 300 other women are seeking settlements directly rather than participating in the scheme, citing concerns about how it is being administered.
The High Court proceedings are scheduled to conclude on Thursday.
