PPE Medpro has been ordered to repay nearly £122 million to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) after losing its High Court case over the supply of sterile gowns during the Covid-19 pandemic — but the company’s principal backer, Doug Barrowman, has responded with a blistering statement accusing the government of political scapegoating and the court of delivering a “travesty of justice”.
In her ruling, Mrs Justice Cockerill found that the gowns supplied by PPE Medpro failed to meet the requirement for a “validated sterilisation process” under the contract, and lacked the necessary Notified Body numbers mandated by EU legislation.
The judge ordered the firm to pay £121,999,219 by 4pm on 15 October 2025.
Barrowman: “This case was too big for the government to lose”
Responding to the ruling, a spokesperson for Barrowman said: “Today, a travesty of justice took place following the judgment of Lady Justice Cockerill. She gave the DHSC an Establishment win despite the mountain of evidence in court against such a judgment. This was a whitewash of the facts… This case was simply too big for the government to lose”.
Barrowman argues that the judgment hinged on a technicality that was not part of the government’s original claim. He says the DHSC pivoted on the first day of trial to argue that PPE Medpro could not prove the exact radiation dosage used during sterilisation — despite having certificates from seven accredited Chinese sterilisation plants confirming the gowns met EN ISO 11137 standards.
“The DHSC never pleaded this argument prior to the start of the case,” Barrowman said. “It makes a mockery of the justice system and should not have been allowed.”
He revealed that since the ruling, PPE Medpro had sent investigators to China and obtained the documents now required — which he claims confirm that all plants fully complied with international sterilisation protocols and are routinely audited by Western certification bodies.
While the final judgment ordered Medpro to repay the full contract sum, Barrowman points out that PPE Medpro succeeded on several of the government’s original arguments:
• The burden of proof was not met by DHSC on claims the gowns were unsterile — microbial contamination evidence was weak, based on just 60 gowns out of 25 million, and possibly caused by improper container storage.
• The right to reject the gowns was lost when DHSC took too long to act.
• Claims over single-bagged gowns, unjust enrichment, and storage costs were dropped or dismissed at trial.
• The judgment made no mention of PPE Medpro’s expert evidence showing the gowns could have been resold in the international market as non-sterile gowns for £85 million at the end of 2020.
Barrowman described the omission of this resale valuation — and the DHSC’s failure to mitigate losses — as “surprising and deliberate”.
Offers to settle ignored
As Business Matters previously reported, PPE Medpro offered to remake all 25 million gowns or pay £23 million in cash on a no-fault basis. These offers were made repeatedly from 2022 right up to — and even during — the trial, but were rejected by the DHSC .
Barrowman claims the government never intended to settle, and instead used the trial as a political smokescreen to shift attention away from £10 billion in written-off pandemic PPE.
The case has been mired in political controversy, largely due to PPE Medpro’s connections to Baroness Mone. Just days before the ruling, Michelle Mone accused Chancellor Rachel Reeves of fuelling a “government vendetta” against her after a reported remark at the Labour Party Conference.
Barrowman added: “The government did not want to settle and chose to fight a show trial at £5 million expense to the taxpayer,” he said. “They made PPE Medpro and, by implication, my wife, Baroness Michelle Mone, the scapegoats.”
Justice Cockerill’s ruling concludes a legal battle that has spanned nearly five years and cost PPE Medpro £4.4 million in legal fees. Whether the company can or will pay the £122 million remains unclear.
Barrowman and Mone have hinted that further legal action may follow, especially given the last-minute change in the DHSC’s legal strategy.
Meanwhile, the government faces renewed scrutiny for its broader handling of pandemic-era procurement — and whether political pressure played a role in selecting which suppliers were pursued through the courts.
As one of the most politically charged commercial cases of the post-Covid era, this may not be the final chapter.