Latest news with #surgicalgowns
The Independent
a day ago
- Business
- The Independent
Baroness Michelle Mone-linked company must pay back £121m for ‘faulty' PPE, High Court told
A company linked to Baroness 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 their lawyers 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. Both have denied wrongdoing. 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 has 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. '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 Baroness Mone 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. The trial before Mrs Justice Cockerill is due to last five weeks, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Firm linked to Baroness Bra 'must pay back £122m for faulty PPE': Government suing over Covid contract 'initiated' by Tory peer
A firm linked to Michelle Mone must repay £122million for allegedly breaching a Covid PPE contract, a court heard yesterday. The bra tycoon had recommended PPE Medpro, which went on to provide 25 million 'faulty' surgical gowns. The consortium, led by the Tory peer's husband Doug Barrowman, was awarded contracts by the former Conservative administration during the pandemic. PPE Medpro is now being sued by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), with Government lawyers claiming the gowns couldn't be used because they were not sterile. Baroness Mone and the firm both deny any wrongdoing. The Government is seeking to recover the costs of the contract, plus an additional £8,648,691 for transporting and storing the items. PPE Medpro said it 'categorically denies' breaching the contract, with its lawyers claiming the company has been 'singled out for unfair treatment'. Opening the trial, Paul Stanley KC, for the DHSC, said: 'This case is simply about whether 25 million surgical gowns provided by PPE Medpro were faulty. 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 contract discussions then going through one of the firm's directors, Anthony Page. Baroness Mone remained 'active throughout' negotiations, he said, with the peer stating Mr Barrowman had 'years of experience in manufacturing, procurement and management of supply chains'. But he said Baroness Mone's communications were not part of this case, which was 'simply about compliance'. He added: '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 almost £122million paid to PPE Medpro between July and August that year. The department rejected the gowns in December 2020 and told the firm it would have to repay the money, but this has not happened and the gowns remain in storage. Mr Stanley said 99.9999 per cent of the gowns should have been sterile under the terms of the contract. The DHSC claims the deal also specified PPE Medpro had to sterilise them using a 'validated process', attested by CE marking, which indicates a product has met certain medical standards. He said 'none of those things happened', and that of 140 gowns tested for sterility, 103 failed. He added that the DHSC 'was entitled to reject the gowns, or is entitled to damages, which amount to the full price and storage costs'. 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 delivery. He said testing was done several months after the gowns were rejected, and that the samples were not 'representative of the whole population'. Mr Samek described the DHSC's claim as 'contrived and opportunistic', with PPE Medpro 'made the fall guy for a catalogue of failures... and uncontrolled buying spree with taxpayers' money'. Neither Baroness Mone nor Mr Barrowman is due to give evidence during the five-week trial. A PPE Medpro spokesman said it 'categorically denies breaching its obligations' and will 'robustly defend' the claim.
The Independent
2 days ago
- Business
- The Independent
High Court hears company linked to Baroness Michelle Mone must pay back £121m for ‘faulty' PPE
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. Both have denied wrongdoing. 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 has 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. '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 Baroness Mone 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. The trial before Mrs Justice Cockerill is due to last five weeks, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Health
- The Guardian
PPE from company linked to Mone did not meet required safety standards, court told
Personal protective equipment supplied by a company linked to the Conservative peer Michelle Mone did not meet required safety standards and 'could seriously harm or kill patients' if used, the UK government has argued in court. Opening a high court trial for the Department of Health and Social Care, Paul Stanley KC said that the company, PPE Medpro, had not complied with technical manufacturing processes to ensure that the 25m surgical gowns it provided were sterile. The DHSC is seeking repayment of the full £122m it paid for the gowns to PPE Medpro, which Mone first recommended to ministers during the Covid pandemic in May 2020. PPE Medpro is defending the claim, arguing that the gowns were manufactured in China to the necessary standard of sterility, and that the DHSC agreed to the process before it awarded the contract. In its claim, the DHSC says that the gowns were marked as sterile and with 'CE', which denotes fulfilment of European technical standards, but did not have the required number after it that shows which approved quality assurance organisation has certified them. Health officials saw this when they first inspected the gowns in the UK in September 2020, and refused to release them for use in the NHS. In his opening submission to the judge, Mrs Justice Cockerill, Stanley referred to a statement made for the case by a DHSC official responsible for quality control of medical products. 'His evidence is categorical; his team would not have considered using the gowns as sterile surgical gowns,' the submission says. 'Without the relevant assurances of conformity that the gowns met sterility requirements, the potential impact on safety was such that they could seriously harm or kill patients and so could not be released for use.' The DHSC awarded the gowns contract, and another contract worth £80.85m to supply face masks, after Mone first approached the then Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove, in May 2020. The contracts were processed via the then Conservative government's 'VIP lane', which gave high priority to companies recommended by people with political connections. Mone, who rose to prominence running her lingerie company, Ultimo, was appointed to the House of Lords by David Cameron in 2015. Mone and her husband, the Isle of Man-based businessman Doug Barrowman, had for years publicly distanced themselves from the company until in November 2023 the couple confirmed their involvementand said that Barrowman was an investor and chair of the PPE Medpro 'consortium'. Setting out how the gowns contract was awarded, the DHSC said in its submission that Mone had 'pressed Medpro's case' with officials. Mone did not attend the hearing, but Barrowman was in the courtroom, sitting with his lawyers. Neither they nor any PPE Medpro employees who were involved in securing the contract, or members of the consortium, are listed to give evidence. Charles Samek KC, representing PPE Medpro, said that the gowns did comply with the required standards for sterility, and that the DHSC had approved the process before they awarded the contract. 'The secretary of state [for health] knew everything there was to know about my client's offer, all cards were on the table face up, and they entered into this contract … with their eyes wide open,' Samek said. The high court action is separate to the investigation by the National Crime Agency into whether Mone and Barrowman committed any criminal offences during the process of procuring the contracts. The couple have denied any criminal wrongdoing. In his submission, Samek said there was a concern that the NCA investigation, which he described as 'long-running and seemingly never-ending', is being conducted at the same time as the DHSC's high court claim 'to exert pressure' on the company and people connected to it. The NCA investigation is 'hanging … like Damocles' sword over PPE Medpro, without ever seemingly being progressed', his submission said. The high court trial is scheduled to last five weeks.
The Independent
2 days ago
- Business
- The Independent
Company linked to Baroness Mone must pay back £121m for ‘faulty' PPE, court told
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. Both have denied wrongdoing. 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 has 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. '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. The trial before Mrs Justice Cockerill is due to last five weeks, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.
