Emirati sisters lose hotel hammer attack case

The Al Najjar sisters were staying at the Cumberland Hotel in London when a man entered their room and bludgeoned them with a claw hammer. - AFP File

The fight continues for the three Emirati sisters who were severely injured in a hammer attack, after a UK court denied their claim for compensation from the London hotel where the assault took place.
Last month, a High Court judge ruled that "there was no liability on the part of the Cumberland Hotel (owned by Malaysian company GLH Hotels) to the women for the attack".
The crime happened on April 2014. The Abu Dhabi-based Al Najjar sisters - Ohoud, Khaloud and Fatima - suffered severe injuries, after Philip Spence bludgeoned them with a claw hammer inside their adjoining rooms at the four-star Cumberland Hotel, located on the corner of Oxford Street and Marble Arch. (Since the attack, the hotel has been rebranded as Hard Rock Hotel London.)
The attacker, who was sentenced to life in prison for three counts of attempted murder, walked into the hotel off the street and managed to reach the seventh floor, where he entered the Al Najjars' room through an open door.
The horrendous attack left Ohoud with only five per cent brain capacity and she would need intensive care for the rest of her life. Khaloud has undergone 20 operations to rebuild her head and face, while Fatima is not able to taste or smell and has problems with her memory. The two also suffer from epilepsy and behavioural disturbances, reports said.
The three took legal action over the hotel's alleged "haphazard security", but the owners denied liability. In an earlier report, Fatima was quoted as saying: "Who could imagine that somebody would come to the seventh floor in the middle of the night and enter our room?
"In our culture, a hotel is a safe place. But, here, there was no security. What kind of security allows somebody to enter the hotel and get into the guest area?"
Justice Dingemans - who heard the case in May and handed the decision on June 21, freeing Cumberland Hotel from culpability - raised the issue of whether a hotel proprietor "owes a duty to guests to take reasonable care to protect against injury caused by the criminal actions of third parties and, if so, whether the duty was breached in this case".
Justice Dingemans ruled that the property was not responsible for the attack as it had taken practical steps to protect guests from criminal acts of third parties.
In a statement, Khaloud and Fatima said the "verdict was a travesty" and "justice has not been done".
The Emirati sisters sued the hotel, claiming that security at the property was inadequate. They argued that Spence reached the upper floors without getting stopped by security. He was able to roam around several floors of the hotel before entering the room to carry out the attack.
The court also heard that Spence had a history of "creeping" into hotels to steal.
According to reports, however, Dingemans said that "while the attack could be predicted by the hotel, the probability of such a violent attack occurring was very low".
In their counter-argument, the hotel owners said the sisters were guilty of "contributory negligence" because the door had been left open, allowing the attacker to enter. The sisters' legal team said it was considering an appeal against the judgment.
angel@khaleejtimes.com
 

• Dubai