On October 1, 2025, the British High Court handed down a landmark decision that has sent shockwaves through both political and business circles in the UK. PPE Medpro, a company established at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and closely linked to Baroness Michelle Mone and her husband Doug Barrowman, was ordered to repay the UK government more than £121 million—equivalent to $163 million—for breaching a contract to supply 25 million surgical gowns to the National Health Service (NHS).
The court’s ruling, delivered by Justice Sara Cockerill, found that PPE Medpro had failed to provide gowns that met the necessary sterilisation standards required for use by NHS workers. According to BBC News, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) had sued PPE Medpro after the gowns—manufactured in China and delivered in August and October 2020—were found to be unfit for purpose. Of 140 gowns tested, 103 failed to meet sterility standards, and the court concluded that Medpro did not demonstrate that a validated sterilisation process had taken place. Justice Cockerill stated plainly, “That was not complied with by Medpro. It followed that Medpro had breached the contract.”
The origins of PPE Medpro are as extraordinary as the ruling itself. The company was set up in May 2020, just seven weeks before it signed its first lucrative government contract. With only £100 in starting capital, Medpro was able to secure two contracts worth more than £200 million after Baroness Mone, a Conservative peer and former lingerie tycoon, referred the company to health minister Lord Agnew—her fellow Tory peer. The contracts were awarded through a controversial so-called “VIP lane,” which fast-tracked suppliers recommended by politicians and government officials during the pandemic’s urgent scramble for personal protective equipment.
However, the gowns that Medpro supplied for £122 million were never used. The government argued in court that the lack of proper sterilisation “could seriously harm or kill patients.” The DHSC rejected the gowns just before Christmas 2020 and demanded a refund. Medpro, for its part, argued that the gowns were compliant and could have been repurposed as non-sterile or isolation gowns, but the judge found these arguments unconvincing, noting that the NHS did not need additional isolation gowns at the time.
The financial distress of PPE Medpro became clear when, on September 30, 2025—a day before the court decision—the company appointed administrators. According to its last set of accounts, Medpro had only £666,025 in shareholders’ funds, a far cry from the sum it now owes the government. The High Court gave the firm until October 15, 2025, to pay the damages in full.
The political fallout has been just as dramatic as the legal one. Baroness Mone, who was appointed to the House of Lords in 2015 by then-Prime Minister David Cameron and later became the government’s “entrepreneurship tsar,” has faced intense scrutiny over her involvement. Initially, she denied any connection to PPE Medpro or financial interest in the contracts. But by December 2023, Mone and Barrowman admitted to both their role in securing the contracts and that they stood to benefit from tens of millions of pounds in profit. Mone also confessed to the BBC that she and her husband had lied about their involvement to avoid “press intrusion.”
Despite her admissions, Mone did not appear in court for the decision and has maintained her innocence in the face of mounting criticism. In a social media post following the ruling, she described the court’s decision as “shocking but all too predictable.” She added, “It is nothing less than an Establishment win for the Government in a case that was too big for them to lose.” Doug Barrowman’s spokesperson went further, calling the ruling “a travesty of justice,” and insisted that PPE Medpro had “convincingly demonstrated that its gowns were sterile.”
The broader political context is impossible to ignore. The contracts were awarded during the Conservative administration, but it is the new Labour government—elected in July 2024—that has pursued the legal case and is now tasked with recovering the money. Treasury chief Rachel Reeves, who has spearheaded efforts to reclaim pandemic-related losses, welcomed the judgment. “We want our money back. We are getting our money back,” she said, adding that the recouped funds would be directed to schools, the NHS, and communities. Reeves also told BBC Radio 5 Live that while she could not strip Mone of her peerage—since only an act of Parliament can do that—she hoped the baroness “won’t be back in the House of Lords.”
Others have called for even greater accountability. Jo Maugham, executive director of the Good Law Project, described the ruling as only the beginning. “The people of the UK made incredible sacrifices during the Covid pandemic, upturning their lives, staying away from their family, acting with a sense of duty towards their loved ones and strangers. Meanwhile, in Whitehall, Tory ministers were finding ways to enrich their chums,” Maugham said. “I’m pleased to see that, after five years and a change in government, some people involved in this national scandal are starting to face consequences. But we cannot claim to have moved on from the venal political culture that brought us the VIP lane until the ministers involved face consequences too.”
The controversy has also attracted the attention of law enforcement. The National Crime Agency (NCA) launched an investigation into PPE Medpro in May 2021, focusing on suspected criminal offences related to the procurement of PPE. The NCA confirmed on Wednesday that its investigation remains ongoing.
As the dust settles, questions linger about the culture of government procurement during the pandemic and the blurred lines between political connections and public contracts. The Medpro saga has become emblematic of the risks—both financial and reputational—of fast-tracking deals in times of crisis. With the company’s financial future in jeopardy and a criminal investigation still underway, the story is far from over. The UK public, meanwhile, waits to see whether the promised funds will indeed make their way back into the nation’s schools, hospitals, and communities.
The High Court’s decision marks a significant step toward accountability after years of denial and obfuscation. But for many, it also highlights the need for deeper reform and transparency in the awarding of public contracts—especially when billions of pounds and public trust are at stake.
