PPE Medpro, a company linked to Conservative peer Michelle Mone, has mounted a strong defence in its £122 million High Court case against the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), accusing the government of “buyer’s remorse” and “chaotic mismanagement” during the initial stages of the Covid-19 pandemic.
In its initial arguments, PPE Medpro asserts that the government is unfairly singling out the firm to divert attention from its own errors during the procurement rush. The company’s legal representatives claim DHSC approved the surgical gowns supplied, fully aware that they did not have CE markings with a notified body number—requirements typically mandatory under medical device regulations but waived under emergency provisions at the time.
The defence hinges on the assertion that PPE Medpro supplied the gowns as an “equivalent technical solution,” a method explicitly allowed by the UK government’s own pandemic guidance. According to the firm, DHSC’s technical assurance team authorised this approach and at no point was a formal derogation or notified body certification indicated as necessary before contract approval.
An email from a DHSC official at the time to PPE Medpro read, “Gowns have been approved by Technical!”, showing departmental consent. This, the company claims, demonstrates that the government accepted the technical and regulatory grounds of the order. PPE Medpro further states that the gown packaging was explicitly labelled and that DHSC—or its logistics partner Uniserve—had the opportunity to inspect the goods upon collection in China but failed to do so.
The government alleges the gowns were unsuitable based on subsequent sterility tests conducted in the UK. However, PPE Medpro dismisses these results, arguing they were carried out on items that had expired or been poorly stored, which could have contaminated the samples. The company highlights that independent experts agreed the unusual mix of microorganisms found pointed to contamination during storage and transportation, rather than manufacturing.
In a significant claim, PPE Medpro suggests it has been singled out from numerous Covid suppliers, possibly because of the high-profile connections of its backers and the perception of its financial ability to repay funds. The firm also refers to a wider “campaign of pressure,” alleging the civil case is being pursued alongside a “never-ending” National Crime Agency investigation that has yet to result in charges.
“The DHSC is attempting to retroactively rewrite the rules of engagement,” the plea argues. “This is a classic case of a government seeking to reclaim money from a contract it regrets, despite knowing precisely what it was purchasing.”
The legal dispute focuses on a £122 million order for 25 million sterile surgical gowns, delivered in 2020. The DHSC later rejected the gowns, citing issues over CE marking and sterility—even though they had passed through its technical assurance process and received internal approval, including sign-off by then-senior civil servant David Williams.
The case’s outcome could have significant implications for pandemic-era procurement disputes and the future use of government emergency powers. With billions of pounds of PPE still in storage, the trial is being closely observed as a measure of governmental accountability.
The case continues.
**Read more: [PPE Medpro hits back in £122m DHSC court case, blaming government ‘chaos’ during Covid procurement](https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/ppe-medpro-responds-dhsc-legal-claim/)**
