In a dramatic turn of events that has gripped both Westminster and the wider British public, PPE Medpro—a company closely linked to Conservative peer Michelle Mone—has been ordered by the High Court to repay more than £121 million to the UK Government. The ruling, handed down by Mrs Justice Cockerill on October 1, 2025, concludes a long-running and highly publicized legal battle over faulty personal protective equipment (PPE) supplied during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The saga began at the height of the pandemic, when the UK government, desperate to secure PPE for frontline NHS staff, set aside standard procurement procedures in favor of rapid contracting. According to The Northern Echo, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) earmarked £12 billion for companies able to supply urgently needed equipment. Among the firms that benefited from this expedited process was PPE Medpro, a consortium led by Michelle Mone’s husband, businessman Doug Barrowman.
Baroness Mone, a Scottish entrepreneur who rose to fame with her lingerie brand Ultimo, played a pivotal role. She personally recommended PPE Medpro to ministers and facilitated its entry into the government’s so-called “High Priority Lane,” which fast-tracked referrals from MPs, ministers, and senior officials. As Mrs Justice Cockerill noted in her 87-page ruling, Baroness Mone was used as a “big gun” during negotiations, “taking up the fight” for the company and even facilitating calls between DHSC and Medpro officials. The judge observed that Medpro “trumpeted” Barrowman’s industry experience, presenting itself as a worthy supplier despite being incorporated only days earlier, in May 2020.
The company ultimately secured two contracts: £80 million for masks and £120 million for surgical gowns. While the masks were accepted and used by the NHS, the gowns—totaling 25 million—were found to be unfit for use. The core issue, as outlined in court documents and reported by The Independent, was that the gowns were not sterile, nor could their sterility be properly validated as required under the contract. Of 140 gowns later tested, 103 failed sterility checks.
The DHSC rejected the gowns in December 2020, months after paying PPE Medpro nearly £122 million for them. The gowns have languished in storage ever since, unusable by NHS staff. Government lawyers argued that the department was entitled to recover the full contract value, plus an additional £8.6 million spent on transporting and storing the items. However, Mrs Justice Cockerill ultimately ruled that while the government could reclaim the contract price, it had failed to sufficiently prove its claim for storage and transport costs.
From the outset, the contracts were dogged by controversy. There were internal DHSC concerns about the “potential for conflict of interest” due to Barrowman’s involvement and the rapid incorporation of Medpro. Nonetheless, as the judge noted, Medpro’s willingness to accept standard government contract terms was seen as a plus at the time.
As the legal proceedings unfolded, Baroness Mone and Doug Barrowman initially denied any connection to Medpro, even threatening defamation lawsuits against those who suggested otherwise. They later admitted their links and disclosed that they made a 30% profit from the contracts, with Barrowman reportedly earning £60 million. Reports from The Northern Echo indicate that Baroness Mone and her children gained £29 million from the deal, contributing to her estimated net worth of £120 million.
The High Court’s decision has sparked fierce debate and polarized reactions. Health Secretary Wes Streeting condemned the actions of PPE Medpro, stating, “PPE Medpro put NHS staff and patients in danger with substandard kit whilst lining their own pockets with taxpayers’ money at a time of national crisis. Today’s court ruling makes clear we won’t stand for it and we’re coming after every penny owed to our NHS.” Chancellor Rachel Reeves echoed this sentiment, pledging, “We want our money back. We are getting our money back.”
Baroness Mone and Barrowman, however, have denounced the judgment. Barrowman called it a “travesty of justice,” claiming, “This judgment is a whitewash of the facts and shows that justice was being seen to be done, where the outcome was always certain for the DHSC and the Government.” Mone described the ruling as “shocking but all too predictable,” asserting it was “nothing less than an establishment win for the Government in a case that was too big for them to lose.” Both maintain they have been scapegoated and vilified, with Mone insisting the case “was never about gowns or money.”
PPE Medpro’s legal team argued that the company had been “singled out for unfair treatment” and accused the Government of “buyer’s remorse.” They contended that any contamination of the gowns was due to the conditions in which they were stored after delivery, rather than a failure in the manufacturing process. The company also claimed that the Government had ordered a decade’s worth of excess gowns, leading to a lack of need and subsequent rejection of the goods.
Despite these arguments, Mrs Justice Cockerill was unequivocal in her findings. She stated, “The DHSC contracted for sterile gowns, but received gowns that were not, contractually speaking, sterile, or properly validated as being sterile. That means that they could not be used as sterile gowns in the NHS or elsewhere.” She dismissed PPE Medpro’s counterclaims, noting they were “contrary to long established legal principle.”
The ruling has reignited calls for Baroness Mone to be stripped of her peerage. Campaign groups like Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK have urged Parliament to act, though legally, removing a life peerage requires a specific act of Parliament. While Mone could choose to resign from the House of Lords, she remains on leave pending the ongoing investigations.
In the aftermath of the judgment, PPE Medpro filed a notice to appoint an administrator, signaling severe financial distress. Meanwhile, the government’s efforts to recoup pandemic-era losses continue, with officials vowing to pursue all companies that may have profited from substandard contracts during the crisis.
As the October 15 deadline for repayment approaches, the case stands as a stark reminder of the challenges and controversies surrounding emergency procurement during a national crisis—and the enduring consequences for those at the center of the storm.
