Holy War at Harrods

[1] The article was 11 pages in length and was published in the September 1995 issue of British Vanity Fair, edited by Henry Porter.

[2] Orth's article also extensively quoted from the 1987 Department of Trade and Industry report into the early life and business career of Al-Fayed and his brother Ali.

[3] In his 2023 memoir, The Glossy Years, Nicholas Coleridge, the chief executive of Condé Nast UK in 1995, described Holy War at Harrods as "unexpectedly restrained" and a "six" on a scale of "one as 'a puff piece' and ten a 'total hatchet job'".

[4] Coleridge felt that the piece was "skilfully done" as Orth had not avoided key issues and that Condé Nast was "unlikely to lose the multi-million pound Harrods advertising account either".

[4] Upon publication of the article, Al-Fayed's spokesperson, Michael Cole, said that it was " ... sad to see such stuff passing itself off as responsible journalism" and that Orth had "found and then believed everyone who is ill-disposed to Mr Fayed including former employees fired for breach of contract and dereliction of duty".

[2] Following publication Al-Fayed sued Condé Nast, the publishers of Vanity Fair, for libel, with the law firm Schillings acting for him.

[4] In preparation for the libel case, Henry Porter, the editor of British Vanity Fair and the lawyer David Hooper, of Biddle & Co, launched an investigation into the claims made by the women against Al-Fayed, which took two years.

[4] Porter and Hooper also investigated the role of doctors who were employed by Al-Fayed to carry out sexual health tests on "young, white, female Harrods employees", the results of which were sent to him.

[8] Al-Fayed resumed placing adverts in Condé Nast publications following the end of the suit; he had previously been one of the publisher's biggest advertisers.