Harrods seeks total indemnity from Mohamed Al Fayed’s Estate against claims brought for the systematic abuse and exploitation that hundreds of women suffered.

This development comes despite Harrods previously stating that it accepted vicarious liability for the ‘despicable sexual abuse’ suffered by hundreds of survivors.
This latest disclosure, on the day of the second anniversary of the documentary that highlighted the scale of the abuse by Fayed and his team of enablers, follows the recent announcement from KP Law that the real value of the claim against Harrods for its 275+ survivor clients is at least £100m and potentially could be as high as £120m to £150m (Harrods Claim Value Revealed | KP Law).

It also follows KP Law announcing earlier this week that despite Harrods and The Estate entering into a negotiated memorandum of understanding with KP Law in December last year, and confirming their intention to provide a faster, more survivor-centric approach to delivering compensation, which would end decades of stress, both Harrods and The Estate have constantly placed more importance on fighting each other rather than seeking to compensate the survivors in a fair and timely manner.
Harrods has constantly claimed to have survivors’ interests at heart but has continued to put its own commercial interests ahead of survivor needs.

Most recently this has included placing significant emphasis on its Passing Over application against the Estate, and informing KP Law that it would not advance settlement discussions until its application has been determined, meaning that 98% of KP Law’s 275+ survivor claims have reached an impasse and cannot move forward. Unless there is a change in this latest stance, Court proceedings are likely to be required to prevent further delay.

Lucy Traynor, Senior Associate with KP Law stated:
“Harrods publicly says that it accepts responsibility for the abuse suffered by survivors. However, its lawyers have confirmed that Harrods intends to seek a full indemnity from Mohamed Al Fayed’s Estate for any compensation it is required to pay.

If successful, that would mean Harrods recovering the entirety of those compensation payments from the Estate and bearing no ultimate financial consequence itself. That position is difficult to reconcile with its public statements about institutional responsibility and accountability. Accountability cannot simply mean making payments to survivors while seeking to pass the cost elsewhere.

The allegations concerning Harrods go beyond the conduct of Al Fayed as an individual who owned the business. Survivors have raised serious questions about the environment in which this was able to happen, the role of Harrods employees and agents, who acted as enablers, what was known or ought to have been known, and the institutional structures that facilitated or failed to prevent his conduct.

This is particularly concerning because the Estate may also be the only source of recovery for survivors whose claims arise outside Harrods or who have direct claims against Mohamed Al Fayed’s Estate. Any attempt by Harrods to recover substantial sums from the Estate could reduce the assets available to meet those survivors’ claims.

Harrods is entitled to pursue whatever legal remedies it considers available, and the court will ultimately determine any entitlement to a contribution or indemnity. However, it should be transparent with survivors and the public: its present position is that, despite its statements about accepting responsibility, it intends to seek recovery from the Estate of every pound it pays in compensation”.

This latest development on the day of the second anniversary continues to have a significant impact on survivors as they continue their long battle for justice, accountability and compensation.