High Court orders £122 million damages in Covid PPE supply case linked to Michelle Mone

More on this

1. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0lk2j5p22ko?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss - Please view link - unable to able to access data
2. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britain-plans-tougher-settlement-rules-refugees-2025-10-01/ - Britain has announced new restrictive measures for refugees' settlement and family reunion rights as part of a broader strategy to reduce immigration. The Labour government, aiming to curb support for the populist Reform UK party and to control illegal crossings from France, will no longer automatically grant permanent residence to asylum-approved migrants. Previously eligible for permanence after five years, refugees will now face extended qualification periods—possibly up to ten years—and must demonstrate contributions to British society, such as paying social security, maintaining a clean record, speaking English, and volunteering. The reforms also end automatic family reunification for refugees, a policy suspended in September. However, the government emphasized that refugees won't be returned to their origin countries and will retain certain "core protections." Further specifics are expected later this year. The interior minister, Shabana Mahmood, had earlier outlined similar requirements for all migrants.
3. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/uk-wins-lawsuit-against-firm-over-gowns-contract-covid-pandemic-2025-10-01/ - The UK government has won a lawsuit against PPE Medpro, a firm involved in a controversial deal during the COVID-19 pandemic. The High Court in London awarded the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) £122 million ($164.3 million) in damages after ruling that PPE Medpro breached a 2020 contract to supply 25 million sterile surgical gowns. The court found the gowns were not properly validated as sterile and could not be used in healthcare settings, thus justifying the department's rejection of the goods and demand for compensation. However, the judge dismissed an additional claim for £8.6 million in storage costs. PPE Medpro, linked to former Conservative lawmaker Michelle Mone, had argued that the government simply regretted the purchase. Mone criticized the court's decision, maintaining that she and her husband, described as the company’s "principal backer," were being scapegoated. Despite the judgment, recovering the awarded damages remains uncertain, as PPE Medpro’s latest financial records show net assets of under £700,000. The company has also filed a notice of intent to appoint an administrator. The case is emblematic of wider criticism over the UK government’s handling of procurement during the pandemic, especially contracts awarded via a "VIP lane."
4. https://apnews.com/article/b7d784339dbfe5e3540887e47c471864 - A British High Court has ordered PPE Medpro, a company linked to lingerie entrepreneur Michelle Mone's husband Doug Barrowman, to repay £121 million ($163 million) for breaching a government contract to supply 25 million surgical gowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. The gowns, manufactured in China, failed to meet sterility standards and were never used by the UK’s National Health Service. The ruling found that PPE Medpro breached the contract, although the government cannot recoup storage costs. PPE Medpro obtained the contract through political connections, recommended by Mone, a Conservative peer who later admitted to misleading the public about her involvement. The firm’s selection epitomized concerns over cronyism in pandemic procurement, where fast-tracked contracts were awarded to politically connected firms. Both Mone and Barrowman deny wrongdoing and criticized the ruling. This case is part of a broader effort by the newly elected Labour government to recover funds lost to PPE procurement failures. Treasury chief Rachel Reeves confirmed the recovered money would support public services. However, PPE Medpro has filed for administration, complicating repayment. Campaigners demand Mone be stripped of her title due to her role in the PPE scandal.
5. https://feeds.bbci.co.uk/news/articles/c1792rk7ynko - A medical supply company linked to peer Baroness Mone and her husband Doug Barrowman has been ordered to pay £122m in damages after a judge ruled it breached a government contract for the supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the Covid pandemic. The Department of Health and Social Care sued PPE Medpro over claims the medical gowns it supplied did not comply with relevant healthcare standards. The High Court ruled the Medpro failed to prove whether or not its surgical gowns, which were to be used by NHS workers, had undergone a validated sterilisation process. The court said the firm had until 15 October to pay the damages to the government. During the outbreak of the Covid pandemic in 2020, the government scrambled to secure supplies of PPE as the country went into lockdown and hospitals across the country were reporting shortages of clothing and accessories to protect medics from the virus. In May that year, PPE Medpro was set up by a consortium led by Baroness Mone's husband, Doug Barrowman, and won its first government contract to supply masks through a so-called VIP lane after being recommended by Baroness Mone. The High Court judgement said the government later ordered 25 million sterile gowns from Medpro, which were delivered in August and October 2020, after being manufactured in China. Medpro's contract was not open to competition due to the exceptional urgency of securing PPE supplies. However, just before Christmas that year, the Department of Health served the company with a notice rejecting the gowns and asking for a refund. The judgement said the government decided it was "not satisfied that the gowns were contractually compliant" after inspecting them, and claimed subsequent tests conducted found "a number of them were not sterile". It led to the government launching legal action in 2022 through the High Court, claiming the gowns did not comply with the agreed contract. Medpro, however, argued it complied with the contract. In the court ruling on Wednesday, Justice Cockerill said the contract between Medpro and the government was "complex", but found that the company did in fact have to demonstrate it had undertaken a "validated sterilisation process". "That was not complied with by Medpro," she said. "It followed that Medpro had breached the contract." The ruling also said the gowns lacked the "notified body number" required to mark them as sterilised, and that Medpro had provided no evidence such a process had taken place. Medpro had also argued that the government could have sold the gowns if it no longer wanted them, or repurposed to be used as non-sterile or isolation gowns. During the case, Medpro said said any lack of sterility or valid sterility marking "did not prevent the said gowns from being used within the NHS or from being sold to third parties outside of the EU". Justice Cockerill said there were problems with that argument, including the fact that the NHS did not need any more isolation gowns. However, she noted that the DHSC did not effectively reject the gowns within a reasonable timeframe, and also dismissed the government's claim for £8.65m in storage costs over lack of evidence. The judge ruled the company much pay £121,999,219 in damages, plus interest, however, it remains unclear how Medpro will pay the fee, with the company appointing administrators the day before the court decision.
6. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/michelle-mone-ppe-medpro-company-loses-gowns-high-court-battle-b1250610.html - And in a judgment delivered on Wednesday, Mrs Justice Cockerill ordered Medpro to pay back the full £122m cost of the gowns contract, finding the company liable for three breaches of contract. She found the gowns supplied by Medpro were faulty and not sterile, and the NHS had “no need” for the product. The judge rejected the government’s claim for storage costs. In a summary of the ruling, the judge said the government is “entitled to the price of the gowns as damages”. “This was because the gowns could not be used as sterile gowns, the alternative was to use them as non-sterile gowns, however the NHS had no need for such gowns and the evidence showed no reasonable market for the gowns outside the NHS due to regulatory and procurement constraints”. Mr Barrowman reacted instantly to the judgment by labelling it a “travesty of justice”. Ahead of the ruling, PPE Medpro filed a “notice of appointment to appoint an administrator”, in a move that could thwart the government’s retrieval of money. In court documents from May this year, the DHSC said the gowns were delivered to the UK in 72 lots between August and October 2020, with £121,999,219.20 paid to PPE Medpro between July and August that year. The department rejected the gowns in December 2020 and told the company it would have to repay the money, but this has not happened, and the gowns remain in storage, unable to be used. During the trial, Paul Stanley KC, for the DHSC, said 99.9999% of the gowns should have been sterile under the terms of the contract, equating to one in a million being unusable.