PPE Medpro Ordered to Repay £122 Million After Losing Covid Gowns Case
PPE Medpro has been ordered to repay nearly £122 million to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) after losing a High Court case over the supply of sterile gowns during the Covid-19 pandemic. The company, connected to entrepreneur Michelle Mone, has already spent £4.4 million on legal zoom fees, with further action possible. The government's handling of the procurement process is now under renewed scrutiny.
The legal battle began when PPE Medpro supplied gowns that failed to meet the required sterilisation standards. The contract specified a 'validated sterilisation process' and necessary Notified Body numbers, which the gowns lacked. Despite this, PPE Medpro succeeded on several of the government's original arguments, including the burden of proof on sterility claims and the right to reject gowns. However, the company was ultimately ordered to repay the £121,999,219 by 4pm on 15 October 2025.
PPE Medpro's principal backer, Doug Barrowman, and Michelle Mone have accused the government of political scapegoating and delivering a 'travesty of justice'. They claim the company offered to remake all 25 million gowns or pay £23 million in cash on a no-fault basis, but these offers were rejected by the DHSC. The government, represented by the legal department of the Federal Ministry of Health, maintains its position.
The case, which has already cost PPE Medpro £4.4 million in legal zoom fees, may not be the final chapter due to its political significance. It has raised questions about the government's broader handling of pandemic-era procurement. The company's ability to pay the £122 million remains unclear, and further legal action may follow, keeping the spotlight on this contentious issue.
Read also:
- Small Business Owners Sound Alarm on Tariff Challenges
- THW Marks 75 Years of Saving Lives at Home and Abroad
- Kazakhstan's National Bank Boosts Currency Sales to $1.4 Trillion in Q4
- Federal petition from CEI seeking federal intervention against state climate disclosure laws, alleging these laws negatively impact interstate commerce and surpass constitutional boundaries.