Michelle Mone Ordered to Repay £121 Million Over PPE Contract Breach

A High Court ruling has mandated that a company associated with Baroness Michelle Mone repay over £121 million to the UK government. This decision stems from a breach of contract concerning the supply of surgical gowns during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) initiated legal action against PPE Medpro, alleging that the gowns supplied were non-compliant as they were not sterile.

In her judgment, Mrs Justice Cockerill stated that the gowns were “not, contractually speaking, sterile, or properly validated as being sterile,” rendering them unsuitable for use by the National Health Service (NHS). This ruling marks a significant legal setback for Mone and her associates, who had been pivotal in securing the contract for PPE Medpro amidst the urgent need for protective equipment.

Baroness Mone has publicly criticized the ruling, describing it as a victory for the “establishment.” She argued that the judgment reflects a broader governmental vendetta against her and her company. Her husband, Doug Barrowman, echoed these sentiments, labeling the decision a “travesty of justice” and asserting that the evidence presented during the trial contradicted the ruling.

The contract in question was awarded to PPE Medpro after Mone recommended the firm to government ministers. She played a crucial role in facilitating discussions between the DHSC and PPE Medpro, which was incorporated in May 2020. The awarding of the contract had previously raised concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest, given Mone’s ties to the firm.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who has spearheaded efforts to recover funds lost during the pandemic, welcomed the court’s decision. During a Labour Party conference fringe event, she expressed determination to reclaim the taxpayer money, stating, “We want our money back. We are getting our money back.” Her remarks included a light-hearted comment about having a vendetta against both Mone and Barrowman, highlighting the political undertones surrounding the case.

PPE Medpro’s legal representatives contended that the company had been subjected to “unfair treatment” and accused the government of experiencing “buyer’s remorse.” They claimed that the gowns’ deterioration was due to the conditions under which they were stored after delivery.

In her ruling, Mrs Justice Cockerill concluded that while PPE Medpro had breached the contract, the DHSC was entitled to recover the price of the gowns as damages. However, the court did not award damages related to the costs of storing the non-compliant items. The company has until 4 PM on October 15, 2023 to repay the specified amount.

Following the judgment, Barrowman reiterated his belief that justice had not been served, arguing that the court’s ruling failed to reflect the realities presented during the trial. He claimed that PPE Medpro had convincingly shown that the gowns were indeed sterile.

Mone described the ruling as “shocking” yet predictable, framing it as a calculated decision by the government to secure a favorable outcome in a case of significant public interest. As the legal implications of this ruling unfold, the case continues to attract attention amid ongoing discussions about accountability and transparency in government procurement during the pandemic.