PPE firm linked to Michelle Mone being sued by UK Government 'due to buyer's remorse'
The UK Government is suing PPE Medpro over 25 million surgical gowns because of 'buyer's remorse', the High Court has heard.
It began legal action after it said the company, linked to Tory peer Michelle Mone, breached a contract made during the coronavirus pandemic by failing to follow a validated sterilisation process.
The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) wants more than £121 million back from PPE Medpro, plus storage costs of over £8 million.
PPE Medpro is also accused of supplying the gowns without CE markings, which shows if a product meets certain medical standards.
Following a month-long trial at the High Court in London, lawyers for PPE Medpro said in closing the Government had ordered 10 years' worth of excess gowns by December 2020.
Charles Samek KC, for PPE Medpro, said in written submissions: 'That simple fact explains why, once the PPEM gowns landed in the UK, they were no longer needed or wanted.'
He described the Government's assessment at the time as 'wildly and hopelessly wrong', adding: 'DHSC's obvious buyer's remorse was channelled into looking for ways to escape from a contract it wished it had never made.'
PPE Medpro has issued a counterclaim saying DHSC owed a duty of care to the company to advise it on compliance with the contract.
Mr Samek said DHSC approved the gowns without seeing a valid CE mark because they did not need one, adding it is 'obvious' PPE Medpro 'did not have and did not pretend to have a valid CE mark'.
Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community!
Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today.
You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland.
No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team.
All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in!
If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'.
We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like.
To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'.
If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.
Testing of 140 gowns after delivery showed 103 failed to meet the sterilisation standard, the court was previously told.
Mr Samek said after delivery to the UK, the gowns were kept in shipping containers for 'at least three months'.
Contamination therefore likely happened 'subsequent to delivery, most probably during the subsequent transportation, storage and handling of the tested gowns', he added.
Paul Stanley KC, for DHSC, said PPE Medpro did not follow a validated sterilisation process and did not keep sufficient records.
He said the bioburden, or level of microbial contamination prior to sterilisation, was not properly assessed and PPE Medpro has been unable to show evidence of this assessment.
In written submissions, he said: 'The absence of such documentation is compelling evidence that the assessment of bioburden did not take place.'
He continued: 'DHSC invites the court to find as a matter of fact that this fundamental step in a validated process for sterilisation was not done.'
The barrister also referenced photographs he said showed how the gowns were not manufactured in a way that would reduce microbial contamination.
These included workers wearing short sleeves, gowns trailing on the floor and personnel wearing street shoes and working without hair protection, he said.
Mr Stanley denied DHSC owed a duty of care to PPE Medpro and said DHSC 'is entitled to repayment of the price, and to recover damages for storage costs'.
He added: 'The gowns were not sterilised using a properly validated process and were not, as a result, compliant with the contractual standard or (in the true commercial sense) 'sterile' gowns at all.'
Closing submissions are expected to conclude on Thursday with a written judgment given at a later date.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
2 minutes ago
- Reuters
Berlin weighs trusteeship extension for Rosneft's German assets, sources say
BERLIN/FRANKFURT, Aug 21 (Reuters) - Berlin is considering extending its trusteeship over the German assets of Russian oil producer Rosneft ( opens new tab for a sixth time, two people familiar with the matter said, as efforts to sell the business drag on. The repeated trusteeship renewals raise pressure on Berlin to come up with a better legal structure for Rosneft's activities in Germany. The situation is emblematic of the challenges Berlin faces in dealing with Russian assets in Germany at a time when efforts to end the war in Ukraine are picking up pace. Rosneft's German assets, including stakes in the Schwedt, MiRo and Bayernoil refineries, were put under government trusteeship in September 2022 in the wake of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which sparked an energy crisis due to the collapse of Europe's relations with key supplier Russia. So far, Berlin has shied away from nationalising Rosneft's activities, opting instead to maintain de facto control over them via a trusteeship that still leaves legal ownership in Russian hands. The trusteeship, which has to be renewed every six months, currently runs until September 10 and is being enacted by the German network regulator, the Bundesnetzagentur, on behalf of the economy ministry. A formal decision about the trusteeship extension is still outstanding, the sources said. Rosneft, Russia's biggest oil producer, has sought to sell its German businesses, including a 54.17% stake in the PCK Schwedt refinery, but talks with potential suitors, including Qatar, have proven unsuccessful so far. The first source said talks between Rosneft and Qatar were ongoing. Rosneft also owns a 24% stake in the MiRo and a 28.57% stake in the Bayernoil refineries. The economy ministry said that Berlin was examining various options regarding the group's German assets. "Ensuring security of supply remains the primary goal," a spokesperson for the ministry said, adding that Berlin was not part of the sales negotiations and could not provide information about it. The Qatar Investment Authority and Rosneft did not respond to requests for comment. Gazprom Germania, now operating under the name Sefe, was nationalised by Berlin in 2022 after the group's former Russian parent ditched the division, which is a vital part of Germany's gas supply. "The federal government is locked into its own strategy. For the (conservatives) Christian Democrats, expropriating companies would be against their campaigns ... it would be a major step with a very high threshold," the first source said.
Times
13 minutes ago
- Times
Glare from solar farm blinding pilots at Schipol airport
Aircraft arriving at one of Europe's busiest airports are being diverted because of the glare from a nearby solar farm. Pilots on approach to Schipol, Europe's fourth biggest airport behind Heathrow, Paris Charles de Gaulle and Istanbul, have warned of dazzling reflections from 228,000 solar panels installed under runway approach paths. The problem has meant that the Zwanenburgbaan and Polderbaan runways must be closed during sunny periods, leading to congestion and delays at the airport and extra noise for locals. The government has had to pay the solar farm's owner €7 million to remove panels and coat them with anti-reflective film SIMON LENSKENS/EPA 'We've seen that the reflection from the solar panels poses problems for flight safety,' Robert Tieman, the Dutch transport minister, said. 'In addition, there was a risk to airport operations, with potentially many delayed and cancelled flights, as well as extended runway changes — which results in additional noise pollution for the surrounding area.' Legal disputes over who should deal with the problem has forced the government to pay almost €7 million to the local authority that owns the solar farm. The panels are being removed and coated with an anti-reflective film. Some 78,000 panels have already been taken away. However, delays will continue until the end of next month while the work is carried out. A study concluded that, unless action was taken, glare from the panels would lead to 10,000 landings being diverted each year, costing airlines €300 million over the spring and summer. The Green Energy Corridor solar farm next to Schipol covers 100 hectares and is capable of powering 40,000 households in the Amsterdam region by generating up to 123 GWh of electricity each year, worth €34.5 million. Because there are no European or international rules to avoid glare from the glass in solar panels, the Netherlands will push for new standards to deal with what is thought to be a wider problem.
Times
32 minutes ago
- Times
Rising food prices mean hefty obesity costs
Stung by the price of olive oil? Burnt by the cost of your coffee? You are not alone. The cost of food and drink is increasing fast, faster than prices in general. This is a bigger problem, politically, socially and economically, than any politician has yet noticed. The government in particular should be paying attention to food bills, and taking action. The Office for National Statistics this week put the annual inflation rate at 3.8 per cent, but also showed that food and drink prices are rising at 4.9 per cent. The average household spends a bit more than £5,000 annually on food, so those numbers add up to about £250 a year. ONS tracking of public opinion shows that the cost of living remains the number one concern for the public, with more than 90 per cent of people citing rising food bills as a reason — well above the share who cite energy bills as an inflationary worry. Being reminded that things are getting more expensive — meaning that you feel poorer — every time you fill your shopping basket is not a happy experience. Food prices rising faster than the cost of other purchases has been a dismally common feature of the UK economy since 2022, for several reasons: war in Ukraine; too much rain; not enough rain; higher energy costs; not enough migrant workers to pick fruit and veg; higher taxes. The public's daily dismay at food prices, I'd bet, is a bigger reason for Britain feeling generally dissatisfied than noisier issues like immigration or crime. Yet it gets curiously little political attention, given how much it matters to voters' lives and outlook. Labour's spin team should give more thought to finding someone else to blame for rising food bills, not least because the problem is going to get worse. The Bank of England reckons food inflation will hit 5.5 per cent by the end of the year, while the British Retail Consortium says 6 per cent. Get ready for a winter of headlines about the painful cost of your Christmas lunch. Looking further ahead, the problem is even worse, reaching beyond simple political unease into questions of fairness, public health and economic performance. Rising food prices affect some groups more than others, with the poorest facing both the greatest financial pain but also the worst long-term consequences. The worst of these is rising obesity levels. Perhaps that will surprise some readers. How do rising food prices make poor people fat? Surely if it's getting harder to buy food, people will eat less of it and get thinner? In fact, a wealth of evidence shows that when low-income households face rising food prices, they trade quality for quantity, buying more cheap foods that are high in calories but low in nutrients. Social scientists grandly call this the 'food insecurity obesity paradox' but it's arguably just the human version of a common animal instinct to put on fat when times are tough and a hard winter is coming. • From peanuts to pomegranates — the 19 foods that will keep you young Almost a third of UK adults are obese, with rates highest among the poorest. There are many links between obesity and poverty but raw economics is a significant factor. According to the Food Foundation, a campaigning charity founded by former Tory MP Laura Sandys, recent years of inflation have made it almost impossible for poorer people to eat healthily. The foundation reckons that the poorest households would need to spend almost half of their disposable income on food to afford a healthy diet high in fruit and veg with limited sugars and fats. For poor parents, a healthy grocery shop could cost 70 per cent of disposable income. Healthier foods are just more expensive per calorie than stuff that's full of sugar and fat. Government calculations show that cauliflower and broccoli might cost almost 2p per calorie; for cheap biscuits it's less than half as much. Obesity means more sickness — diabetes and heart disease, in particular — and shorter lives. It means misery for individuals and mounting costs to taxpayers. My back-of-an-envelope calculations suggest that just a one percentage point increase in the obesity rate (roughly 550,000 more people getting too fat) costs the state more than £3 billion over ten years in higher NHS and care costs. We must make good food cheaper for poorer people, but that's far easier said than done. Continuing education to overcome ignorance about nutrition helps but new ideas are needed. What about Nutrition Impact Bonds? Building on NHS 'social prescribing' models, public and private investors could pay upfront for subsidised or even free healthy food for poorer households, then be paid back from the savings the state makes from lower obesity spending. The causes of higher food prices are big, complicated and long-term. Likewise the public health challenge of obesity and poor diets. It follows that fixing them will be a long-term project, the sort of job that no government, especially an unpopular one worrying about its next election, rushes to tackle. • Eating home-cooked food 'helps you lose twice as much weight' But Labour should lift food prices and obesity up its agenda, because they interact with the government's emerging economic focus. Ministers are planning an autumn drive on productivity, correctly identifying Britain's basic economic effectiveness — how much stuff do we generate from each hour of work we do? — as a national priority. Helping business to finance and deploy technology and training to make workers more effective is a key part of productivity, but so too is ensuring the availability of a healthy workforce. And our fatter, sicker population is emerging as a drag on productivity, as more and more people go off sick or leave work outright. Last month a paper by Nesta, a think tank, and Frontier Economics put the cost of productivity lost to obesity at £31 billion a year. The study shows that obesity doesn't just drag on the economy by taking people out of the workforce through sickness. Boldly, it says that obese people just aren't as effective at work as healthy colleagues and cost the economy almost £10 billion a year, it estimates. The government rightly wants to increase productivity but the fact is that Britain is simply too fat and ill to be fully productive. And in large part that's because of bad and increasingly expensive diets. Sadly, the cost of food is even higher than you think. James Kirkup is a senior fellow of the Social Market Foundation
