Company linked to Tory Peer Baroness Mone should pay back £121m for ‘faulty' PPE, High Court hears
Company linked to Tory Peer Baroness Mone should pay back £121m for 'faulty' PPE, High Court hears
PPE Medpro is being sued for an alleged breach of contract over the supply of PPE during the Covid pandemic, with the Government claiming the gowns were unusable
The company in court is linked to Baroness Mone
(Image: PA Archive/PA Images )
A company linked to Tory peer Michelle Mone should pay back more than £121 million for breaching a Government contract for 25 million surgical gowns during the coronavirus pandemic, the High Court has heard.
The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is suing PPE Medpro for allegedly breaching a deal for the gowns, with lawyers for the Government telling the court they were "faulty" because they were not sterile.
The company, a consortium led by Baroness Mone's husband, businessman Doug Barrowman, was awarded Government contracts by the former Conservative administration to supply PPE during the pandemic, after she recommended it to ministers. Any wrongdoing has been denied. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here
The Government is seeking to recover the costs of the contract, as well as the costs of transporting and storing the items, which amount to an additional £8,648,691.
PPE Medpro said it "categorically denies" breaching the contract, and its lawyers claimed the company had been "singled out for unfair treatment".
Opening the trial on Wednesday, Paul Stanley KC, for the DHSC, said: "This case is simply about whether 25 million surgical gowns provided by PPE Medpro were faulty.
Article continues below
"It is, in short, a technical case about detailed legal and industry standards that apply to sterile gowns."
Mr Stanley said in written submissions the "initial contact with Medpro came through Baroness Mone", with discussions about the contract then going through one of the company's directors, Anthony Page.
Baroness Mone remained "active throughout" the negotiations, Mr Stanley said, with the peer stating Mr Barrowman had "years of experience in manufacturing, procurement and management of supply chains".
But he told the court Baroness Mone's communications were "not part of this case", which was "simply about compliance".
He said: "The department does not allege anything improper happened, and we are not concerned with any profits made by anybody."
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.
In written submissions for trial, Mr Stanley said 99.9999% of the gowns should have been sterile under the terms of the contract, equating to one in a million being unusable.
The DHSC claims the contract also specified PPE Medpro had to sterilise the gowns using a "validated process", attested by CE marking, which indicates a product has met certain medical standards.
He said "none of those things happened", with no validated sterilisation process being followed, and the gowns supplied with invalid CE marking.
He continued that 140 gowns were later tested for sterility, with 103 failing.
He said: "Whatever was done to sterilise the gowns had not achieved its purpose, because more than one in a million of them was contaminated when delivered.
"On that basis, DHSC was entitled to reject the gowns, or is entitled to damages, which amount to the full price and storage costs."
In his written submissions, Charles Samek KC, for PPE Medpro, said the "only plausible reason" for the gowns becoming contaminated was due to "the transport and storage conditions or events to which the gowns were subject", after they had been delivered to the DHSC.
He added the testing did not happen until several months after the gowns were rejected, and the samples selected were not "representative of the whole population", meaning "no proper conclusions may be drawn".
He said the DHSC's claim was "contrived and opportunistic" and PPE Medpro had been "made the 'fall guy' for a catalogue of failures and errors" by the department.
He said: "It has perhaps been singled out because of the high profiles of those said to be associated with PPE Medpro, and/or because it is perceived to be a supplier with financial resources behind it.
"In reality, an archetypal case of 'buyer's remorse', where DHSC simply seeks to get out of a bargain it wished it never entered into, left, as it is, with over £8 billion of purchased and unused PPE as a result of an untrammelled and uncontrolled buying spree with taxpayers' money."
He also said there was a "delicious irony" that Baroness Mone was mentioned in the DHSC's written submissions, when she had "zero relevance to the contractual issues in this case".
Neither Baroness Mone nor Mr Barrowman is due to give evidence in the trial, and did not attend the first day of the hearing on Wednesday.
A PPE Medpro spokesperson said the company "categorically denies breaching its obligations" and will "robustly defend" the claim.
Article continues below
The trial before Mrs Justice Cockerill is due to last five weeks, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
43 minutes ago
- The Independent
Kendall to add protections to welfare Bill amid backlash to cuts
The Work and Pensions Secretary will add 'non-negotiable' protections to the Welfare Reform Bill, amid a backlash against planned cuts to benefits. The package of measures is aimed at reducing the number of working-age people on sickness benefits, and the Government hopes they can save £5 billion a year by the end of the decade. The proposals include tightening of the eligibility criteria for personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit in England, and cutting the sickness-related element of universal credit (UC). Dozens of Labour MPs last month urged the Prime Minister to pause and reassess planned cuts, saying the proposals are 'impossible to support'. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall told the Guardian there will be extra protections added to the Bill when it is published next week. She said: 'When we set out our reforms we promised to protect those most in need, particularly those who can never work. 'I know from my 15 years as a constituency MP how important this is. It is something I take seriously and will never compromise on. 'That is why we are putting additional protections on the face of the Bill to support the most vulnerable and help people affected by the changes. 'These protections will be written into law, a clear sign they are non-negotiable.' A Government impact assessment published alongside the reforms warned some 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, across England, Scotland and Wales, could fall into relative poverty after housing costs as a result of the changes.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Why can't ministers just tell us where they plan to house migrants once spending on hotels stops?
What trust? WHY can't ministers just tell us where they plan to house migrants once spending on hotels stops? Their only answer to the question is to repeatedly insist that the Government wants to deport those who have no right whatsoever to be here. 1 How can voters have any trust in that? In the year to March, just 6,339 people were forcibly returned. But more than 15,000 have arrived illegally by small boat already in 2025. Another 125,000 people are still waiting for decisons on their asylum claims. So in the unlikely event ministers find an immediate way of either stopping the boats entirely or sending migrants straight back to France, tens of thousands will have to be housed for years. The uncomfortable truth for the Government is that the vast majority will be shoved into rented accommodation — for several years to come. Blocks of flats filled largely with young, unemployed men. All living for free among families struggling to pay the bills. Surely even the Home Office can see this is not a recipe for community cohesion? Zero cheer PRESIDING over an economy as remorselessly sluggish as the UK's, it was perhaps unwise of the Chancellor to boast that Britain has enjoyed the fastest growth in the whole of the G7. Yesterday's GDP figures for April showing a 0.3 per cent fall mean we are now in danger of having the fastest SLOWING economy. Some of the mini-slump was caused by Donald Trump's insane tariffs. But the cost to businesses of the National Insurance rise on employers is now very real. It has cost jobs, while also squeezing wages and consumer spending. Next spring, bigger bills landing on the doorstep will include whacking great council tax. That is now set to rise at the fastest rate for 25 years. Far from fixing the foundations, the Chancellor's problems are again piling up. Awful April might just signal the start of an even worse year. Pray for them THE terrible scenes which unfolded during the Air India crash were, as the King said, desperately shocking. It is horrifying to think of so many loved ones gone in a few moments of appalling tragedy. Couples like Brits Fiongal and Jamie Greenlaw-Meek, who were just returning from a holiday of a lifetime. Yesterday was a day of overwhelming pain and grief.
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Kendall to add protections to welfare Bill amid backlash to cuts
The package of measures is aimed at reducing the number of working-age people on sickness benefits, and the Government hopes they can save £5 billion a year by the end of the decade. The proposals include tightening of the eligibility criteria for personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit in England, and cutting the sickness-related element of universal credit (UC). Dozens of Labour MPs last month urged the Prime Minister to pause and reassess planned cuts, saying the proposals are 'impossible to support'. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall told the Guardian there will be extra protections added to the Bill when it is published next week. She said: 'When we set out our reforms we promised to protect those most in need, particularly those who can never work. 'I know from my 15 years as a constituency MP how important this is. It is something I take seriously and will never compromise on. 'That is why we are putting additional protections on the face of the Bill to support the most vulnerable and help people affected by the changes. 'These protections will be written into law, a clear sign they are non-negotiable.' A Government impact assessment published alongside the reforms warned some 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, across England, Scotland and Wales, could fall into relative poverty after housing costs as a result of the changes.
