To make matters worse, the executors could be called as witnesses in a criminal court; it is not unusual for perpetrators’ families to be questioned in cases involving organised sexual exploitation, regardless of whether they themselves are accused of wrongdoing. People who may later give evidence having previously accessed, directly or indirectly, survivor evidence is a fundamental conflict.
Many survivors feel the change leaves them with only two options: to seek redress and surrender all control of their data and evidence, or not.
A spokesperson for Harrods said the company has already settled several claims with survivors and continues to do so. They added: “Harrods is continuing to consider what further action it may take to recover some or all of its outlay from the estate. Depending on what steps Harrods decides to take, it may be required by law to provide details of settled claims to the estate pursuant, and always subject to, the court rules and GDPR considerations.
“Harrods respects the anonymity of survivors and is taking every step possible to put in place confidentiality arrangements with the lawyers representing the Fayed estate that place restrictions on access to sensitive materials.”
But the disclosure risk arises only if Harrods chooses to pursue a contribution claim against the estate. It is not required by law to take action to reduce the cost of compensating survivors.
It’s important to remember that this is not a commercial dispute, but allegations of mass sexual abuse, exploitation of multiple victims across decades and trafficking.
The evidence that survivors applying for the redress scheme have to provide is personal: it involves details of abuse and humiliation, histories of coercion, and medical disclosures, including about their mental and sexual health.
Now Harrods is demanding that this sensitive information be shared with a third party linked to the abuse.
This is not ‘normal litigation’
Press reports from June 2025 said Harrods planned to take legal action to force the Al Fayed family to appoint independent executors. While this move would provide reassurance to survivors, they have not received any updates on whether the application was lodged or resolved.
Another revision to the scheme’s terms says that Harrods “is seeking to enter into confidentiality arrangements that place restrictions on access to sensitive materials”. This, as Harrods has noted, would mean survivor material is shared with estate lawyers but not directly with executors.
That sounds reassuring. It isn’t.
You can read the full story here.
