UK Government Secures £122m Win Against Michelle Mone-Linked Firm Over Defective PPE

Published: 01 October ‘2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

In a landmark legal decision, the UK government has successfully reclaimed £122 million from a company linked to Conservative peer Michelle Mone after it supplied defective personal protective equipment (PPE) during the Covid-19 pandemic. The case, which has drawn intense public scrutiny, revolved around claims that PPE Medpro failed to meet statutory safety standards for 25 million surgical gowns purchased under a government contract in mid-2020.

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) initiated proceedings against PPE Medpro in December 2022, asserting that the gowns were neither sterile nor compliant with PPE regulations. The trial, held over five weeks at London’s Rolls Building during the summer, examined evidence regarding the gowns, which were manufactured in China and marked with a CE symbol, suggesting conformity with European safety standards. However, the court heard that no authorised quality assurance body had verified the gowns’ sterility, a requirement under UK and EU law.

Paul Stanley KC, representing the DHSC, highlighted the severity of the failure in his opening statement. He referenced a health official’s assessment that the gowns’ potential impact could seriously harm or even be fatal to patients, rendering them unsuitable for NHS use. Stanley argued that the CE marking on the gowns was invalid and that the company had not complied with legal obligations to ensure the PPE’s safety.

PPE Medpro, ultimately owned by Mone’s husband, Isle of Man businessman Doug Barrowman, contested the claim. The company’s legal counsel, Charles Samek KC, argued that the gowns had been correctly manufactured and sterilised in China and that the DHSC had agreed to the process prior to awarding the contract. Samek stated, “The secretary of state knew all details of my client’s offer; the contract was entered into with full knowledge, transparency, and consent.”

Despite these arguments, Mrs Justice Cockerill ruled decisively in favour of the DHSC, ordering PPE Medpro to repay the £122 million in full, along with additional costs and accrued interest. This ruling forms part of a broader scrutiny of contracts awarded under the so-called “VIP lane” during Boris Johnson’s government, which prioritised companies with political connections for PPE procurement as the UK faced critical shortages at the height of the pandemic.

The gowns contract, valued at £122 million, and an additional contract worth £80.85 million for face masks, were both awarded to PPE Medpro following Mone’s direct approach to then-Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove in May 2020. Evidence presented during the trial indicated that Mone remained actively involved in the negotiations throughout the contract process, despite years of public denial of her role in the company.

Michelle Mone, who gained prominence in the early 2000s through her lingerie brand Ultimo, and her husband Barrowman, publicly confirmed in December 2023 that they were directly involved with PPE Medpro, with Barrowman acknowledging himself as the ultimate beneficial owner. Court filings revealed that Barrowman had received at least £65 million from the company’s profits, of which £29 million was transferred into a trust benefiting Mone and their three adult children.

The case concerning the gowns was distinct from an ongoing National Crime Agency (NCA) investigation, which began in May 2021, examining whether Mone and Barrowman had committed criminal offences during the procurement process. Both have consistently denied any wrongdoing, and no criminal charges have yet been filed in connection with the contracts.

The trial also exposed attempts by the DHSC to pause the civil proceedings until any criminal investigations were concluded, a motion influenced by advice from the NCA. PPE Medpro opposed this application, and the government ultimately chose to proceed with the case, leading to the current judgment.

This legal victory underscores the UK government’s determination to hold suppliers accountable, particularly in instances where public funds are spent on critical health equipment. The defective gowns, despite costing £122 million, were rejected immediately following their first UK inspection in September 2020 and were never used within the NHS. The decision reflects the court’s acknowledgment of the potential public health risk posed by the defective products, which had been supplied under extraordinary circumstances during the early stages of the pandemic.

The broader context of the VIP lane has also come under significant scrutiny. Thousands of companies competed for government contracts to address the country’s depleted PPE stocks, but a fast-track process afforded high-priority access to those with political connections. Critics argue that the lane undermined competitive fairness and transparency, allowing individuals with influential contacts to secure substantial government contracts rapidly.

During the trial, documents revealed that the VIP lane contracts were processed quickly, and communications indicated Mone’s active involvement in discussions regarding both gowns and mask supplies. These revelations, coupled with the magnitude of payments and the subsequent legal proceedings, have intensified media and public interest in the role of political influence in pandemic procurement.

For the DHSC, the case represents not only a financial recovery but also a symbolic reaffirmation of regulatory standards and accountability. The department’s legal team emphasized that ensuring PPE safety is critical to protecting both healthcare workers and patients. In the context of the pandemic, the stakes were exceptionally high, with defective protective equipment potentially jeopardising lives.

Commentators note that the high-profile nature of the case has wider implications for government procurement practices. Transparency, due diligence, and compliance with statutory requirements have emerged as central issues, with this ruling highlighting the legal and reputational risks faced by suppliers and the potential consequences of failing to meet standards.

The outcome also raises questions about oversight and governance within government contract allocation, particularly during emergency circumstances. While the VIP lane was intended to expedite procurement and address urgent needs, critics argue that it exposed vulnerabilities in accountability and risk assessment, leading to the selection of suppliers whose products ultimately did not meet regulatory requirements.

From a financial perspective, the £122 million repayment, combined with costs and interest, represents a significant recoupment of public funds. However, the case underscores the broader societal cost of rapid, politically influenced procurement decisions during crises. It highlights the tension between expediency in emergency situations and the rigorous enforcement of standards designed to safeguard public safety.

As this chapter concludes with the court’s ruling, attention now turns to the ongoing NCA investigation and potential civil or criminal proceedings that may follow. The involvement of high-profile figures such as Michelle Mone and Doug Barrowman ensures continued media scrutiny and public interest in the case, while reinforcing debates over ethics, transparency, and governance in government contracting.

The judgment serves as a clear signal that the courts will uphold contractual and regulatory obligations, even in cases involving prominent individuals or politically connected firms. For the DHSC, it demonstrates the department’s capacity to act decisively to protect public interests and recover funds when contractual obligations are not met.

In sum, the court’s decision represents a milestone in the UK’s legal and public health landscape, reaffirming the importance of compliance, accountability, and transparency in government procurement. By holding PPE Medpro financially responsible for defective surgical gowns, the ruling seeks to reinforce public confidence in the procurement process and ensure that lessons are learned for future emergency responses.