Connect with us

Business

Partners of Michelle Mone’s Firm Seek Settlement in PPE Case

Editorial

Published

on

Partners of a consortium linked to Baroness Michelle Mone are considering a settlement with the UK Government after a court ruling required them to repay £122 million for breaching a personal protective equipment (PPE) contract. The company, PPE Medpro, was found liable for supplying non-sterile surgical gowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to significant financial repercussions.

The legal troubles began when the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) initiated proceedings against PPE Medpro in the High Court. The court ruled that the gowns provided were “faulty,” as they were not validated to be sterile, rendering them unsuitable for use within the National Health Service (NHS). Mrs Justice Cockerill stated that the gowns did not meet the contractual standards required, which ultimately led to the government’s decision to seek reimbursement.

PPE Medpro, a consortium led by Doug Barrowman, who is married to Lady Mone, recently filed for administration. In light of these developments, Barrowman expressed his willingness to engage in dialogue with the administrators to explore potential settlement options with the government. He stated, “The consortium partners of PPE Medpro are prepared to enter into a dialogue with the administrators of the company to discuss a possible settlement with the Government.”

The consortium had received contracts from the previous Conservative administration, following a recommendation from Lady Mone, who was made a peer in 2015 by former Prime Minister David Cameron. In their defense, PPE Medpro’s barristers argued that they were unfairly treated and accused the government of experiencing “buyer’s remorse.” They contend that any defects in the gowns arose from improper storage conditions after delivery, rather than issues during production.

Lady Mone publicly criticized the court’s decision, describing it as a victory for the “establishment.” Barrowman referred to the ruling as a “travesty of justice.” Despite these claims, it is reported that the partners are eager to resolve the matter amicably. Administrators have been encouraged to reach out to the government to facilitate a resolution.

PPE Medpro has also indicated that it spent £4.3 million defending its position in court. The company claims it made settlement offers on a no-fault basis, including the option to remake the 25 million gowns or provide a cash equivalent of £23 million, both of which were rejected by the government. The consortium maintains that it delivered all 25 million gowns and disputes the claim regarding their sterility.

At the end of 2020, the gowns reportedly had a resale value of approximately £85 million, indicating the significant financial stakes involved. While Baroness Mone has distanced herself from returning to the House of Lords, the implications of this case continue to unfold, highlighting the complexities of government contracts during a global health crisis.

As the situation develops, stakeholders await further communications from the administrators and the government, which could potentially lead to a resolution of this high-profile legal battle.

Our Editorial team doesn’t just report the news—we live it. Backed by years of frontline experience, we hunt down the facts, verify them to the letter, and deliver the stories that shape our world. Fueled by integrity and a keen eye for nuance, we tackle politics, culture, and technology with incisive analysis. When the headlines change by the minute, you can count on us to cut through the noise and serve you clarity on a silver platter.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © All rights reserved. This website offers general news and educational content for informational purposes only. While we strive for accuracy, we do not guarantee the completeness or reliability of the information provided. The content should not be considered professional advice of any kind. Readers are encouraged to verify facts and consult relevant experts when necessary. We are not responsible for any loss or inconvenience resulting from the use of the information on this site.