Lawyers representing 37 women in a potential civil claim against Harrods over allegations involving former boss Mohamed Al Fayed have insisted that any non-disclosure agreements signed would ‘not preclude us from getting justice for these women’.
Barristers Dean Armstrong KC, of Maitland chambers, Bruce Drummond, of New Bailey chambers, and Maria Mulla, of Maitland chambers, revealed at a press conference today (Friday 20 September) that they would not be pursuing a class action and would instead focus on individual claims against Harrods on behalf of each of their clients. They appeared alongside US attorney Gloria Allred and one of Fayed’s ‘surviviors’, Natacha. The women make allegations of rape and sexual assault against the late businessman.
The legal team is still at the investigation stage and no claims have yet been issued due to the scale of the allegations against Al Fayed, who died last year aged 94, and Harrods. The scandal involves alleged victims from across the world, Mulla said.
‘There are lots of different potential elements to this [claim], potential jurisdictional elements that need to be considered,’ she said. ‘Whilst we accept and we know we have an obligation to act diligently and properly, we are still very much investigating. We have not issued [claims] but we are very much getting our action together.’
The civil claims will initially focus on Harrods and its ‘systematic failure of corporate responsibility’ – but ‘nothing was off the table’, Amstrong said.
Asked about NDAs which some former employees signed, Armstrong said: ‘It should never be the case, and I am not of a view that it is the law, that the law should protect those who engage and indulge in criminal activities.
‘It is very very important to remember the circumstances in which those NDAs and some settlements were given. There was no level playing field. We will fight their voracity and their applicability. We are very confident those NDAs will not preclude us from getting justice for these women.’
Armstrong said the team was not opting for class actions due to the ‘technical issues regarding similarities of class’.
He added: ‘The real answer is every single person, every single survivor, suffered and suffers different harm and different long-term effects and we are not going to, as a team, allow other considerations which may be financial, to have people’s lives and responsibility and their rights compromised by the fact that it is easier to deal with a class action to get money out at the end.
‘That is not why we are here. It is not our aim, it is not our purpose. Everyone who comes to us will be treated as an individual.’
He continued: ‘It is certainly not the case that we are not pursuing other parties. We are not ruling anything out. Why the focus on Harrods? This was systematic trafficking of women for sexual gratification.
‘That system began with a selection process where women of similar age [and] look, were selected. Once that selection had taken place, unbeknownst to them, intrusive medical examinations were undertaken in order to ensure their…suitability. They were then put into a vulnerable position where they would be isolated, called up to the chairman’s office or his private quarters where despicable acts would take place and then there would be a cover up.
‘This is, and was, a systematic failure of corporate responsibility and that systematic failure is on the shoulders of Harrods.
‘We will not individualise those who we hold responsible. We are not going to get into the situation where there is any room for anyone to seek to avoid responsibility by saying “it was their fault” so we pursue Harrods and we focused on Harrods at this stage because of the collective corporate responsibility and vicarious liability that these acts and the evidence we have come across shows clearly.
‘These are not accidents, these are not unconnected matters. We have a specific laser focus for justice for these women.’
Discussing limitation, Armstrong added: ‘I hold out a challenge to Harrods that if Harrods are going to seek to say to us these claims should be barred on the basis of limitation then they are effectively adopting the argument that threats will always win the day. We will not accept that argument and we are pretty confident the courts won’t either.’
In a statement given to the BBC for the broadcaster’s documentary Al-Fayed: Predator at Harrods, Harrods said: ‘We are utterly appalled by the allegations of abuse perpetrated by Mohamed Al Fayed. These were the actions of an individual who was intent on abusing his power wherever he operated and we condemn them in the strongest terms. We also acknowledge that during this time as a business we failed our employees who were his victims and for this we sincerely apologise.
‘The Harrods of today is a very different organisation to the one owned and controlled by Al Fayed between 1985 and 2010, it is one that seeks to put the welfare of our employees at the heart of everything we do. This is why, since new information came to light in 2023 about historic allegations of sexual abuse by Al Fayed, it has been our priority to settle claims in the quickest way possible, avoiding lengthy legal proceedings for the women involved. This process is still available for any current or former Harrods employees.
‘While we cannot undo the past, we have been determined to do the right thing as an organisation, driven by the values we hold today, while ensuring that such behaviour can never be repeated in the future.’
