New 100% Tariff on Chinese Goods — Trump’s Bold Move Shakes Markets and Global Trade

High Court rules firm linked to Baroness Michelle Mone breached £121.9m PPE contract

By JesterX • October 1, 2025

The High Court has found that PPE Medpro — a company linked to Tory peer Baroness Michelle Mone and led by her husband Doug Barrowman — failed to meet contractual requirements when supplying surgical gowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. The ruling orders repayment of £121.9m for gowns judged non-sterile, intensifying scrutiny over VIP contracts awarded during the crisis.

What the court found

The High Court concluded that PPE Medpro breached the government contract for supplying surgical gowns because the gowns did not have a validated process to demonstrate sterility. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) argued that 25 million gowns were "faulty" and non-sterile, rendering them unsellable and unusable for the NHS.

As a result the court ordered repayment of the contract’s value — £121.9m — to the government. The DHSC had also sought an additional £8.6m for transport and storage costs, but the judge rejected that claim, saying those losses were not proven at trial.

How the contract was awarded

Documents revealed during the case showed Baroness Mone was the "source of referral" for PPE Medpro to enter the government's so-called "VIP lane" — an expedited procurement channel set up during the pandemic to fast-track suppliers. The company, a consortium led by Doug Barrowman, was subsequently awarded the multi-million-pound deal.

Both Baroness Mone and Mr Barrowman have denied wrongdoing. Neither gave evidence during the trial. Earlier statements from Ms Mone said she initially denied involvement in the procurement process, a position that was later clarified by documents showing her role as a referrer.

Responses: denials and demands for accountability

Following the judgement, Baroness Mone described the ruling as "shocking but all too predictable" and accused the government of using her and her husband as "poster couple[s] for the PPE scandal." Mr Barrowman called the decision "a travesty of justice", insisting the gowns were sterile and calling the ruling a "whitewash of the facts".

The ruling was welcomed by the Chancellor and COVID-19 victims’ groups. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: “We want our money back. We are getting our money back. And it will go where it belongs - in our schools, NHS and communities.” The bereaved families group added that "profiting and corruption during the pandemic cost lives" and insisted those responsible must be held to account.

What this means practically

The immediate financial impact is clear: PPE Medpro has been ordered to repay nearly £122m, a rare successful recovery for the DHSC in pandemic-era procurement litigation. However, observers warn recovery may be complicated if the company collapses — PPE Medpro had signalled intentions to appoint an administrator ahead of the ruling.

Beyond the money, the case revives scrutiny of the VIP lane and the speed-versus-due-diligence trade-off used at the height of the pandemic. Critics say the rush to secure supplies created opportunities for cronyism and poor oversight; defenders say extraordinary times required extraordinary procurement channels to shield the NHS from critical shortages.

Voices & opinion

Below is a notable public reaction — included at the request of this article's editors. The comment is attributed to the user's social handle.

JessSalop (Bluesky)

@JessSalop · Bluesky

"And there will be no consequences. The money has long since been moved, and the company will just fold. The only chance might be to seize personal assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act."

@honestdan07

She should automatically be removed as a peer and from the house of lords, with an automatic freeze of all bank accounts and HMRC recovering all funds plus interest. This needs to happen now if the government wish to show strength and justice for the tax payers.

Legal and political implications

Legally, the ruling confirms that contractual compliance — including demonstrable sterility for medical gowns — cannot be bypassed even under emergency procurement rules. Politically, it is likely to increase pressure on ministers and officials over how VIP referrals were handled. Calls for tighter procurement transparency and stronger conflict-of-interest safeguards are likely to intensify in Parliament.

Questions that remain

• Will PPE Medpro be able to repay the ordered amount if the company enters administration?
• Could investigators seek to recover assets from company principals under money-recovery or proceeds-of-crime mechanisms?
• Will this judgment prompt official reviews of the VIP lane and procurement policies used during the pandemic?

Why this matters: the case highlights the tension between emergency speed and procurement safeguards. For the public, the outcome raises hard questions about accountability and whether public funds used in a crisis can be effectively recovered.

If you want, we can prepare a follow-up piece exploring possible enforcement routes (administration, asset seizures, or civil recovery) and tracking reactions from Parliament and the DHSC as they develop.

Read original reporting

Sources: Sky News reporting and court judgement summaries