PPE Medpro Faces High Court Claims Over Unsafe Gowns During COVID-19

The High Court in London has begun hearing a case against PPE Medpro, a medical supplies company allegedly responsible for supplying unsafe personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The trial, which commenced on June 11, 2025, centers on claims made by the UK government regarding a breach of contract involving £122 million worth of medical gowns deemed unfit for use. Government lawyers stated that a significant portion of the 25 million gowns supplied by PPE Medpro were not sterile and improperly packaged, raising serious concerns about their usage by healthcare professionals during a critical public health crisis.

According to statements made by government representatives, the gowns were procured through a fast-tracked procurement process known as the "VIP lane," which prioritized suppliers with political connections. Baroness Michelle Mone, a Conservative peer, is notably linked to the case, having allegedly lobbied for PPE Medpro to receive the lucrative contracts, which were awarded amid widespread shortages of PPE during the early days of the pandemic.

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) initiated legal proceedings against PPE Medpro in 2022, arguing that the company had provided invalid information regarding the health and safety standards of the gowns. The DHSC's claim states that the CE mark, which certifies compliance with EU health and safety legislation, was not valid as it lacked the necessary accreditation details. In an independent analysis of a sample of 140 gowns, it was reported that 103 were found to be non-sterile, leading to the rejection of the entire shipment.

Legal representatives for the government emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, noting that PPE Medpro's decision not to call any factual witnesses during the trial leaves significant gaps in their defense. This includes critical questions regarding the manufacturing and sterilization processes of the gowns. Government lawyers indicated that this absence of testimony could undermine PPE Medpro's position, particularly in relation to their compliance with applicable safety standards.

In a statement released to the court, PPE Medpro refuted the accusations, asserting that its gowns, manufactured in China, were accepted as suitable upon delivery and that the DHSC acted hastily in awarding contracts during the PPE crisis. The company argued that it has been unfairly singled out due to the high-profile nature of those associated with it, referencing Baroness Mone's public prominence.

The implications of this case extend beyond the courtroom, as it raises broader questions about procurement practices in emergency situations and the potential for conflicts of interest in government contracts. Experts in public health and procurement ethics have expressed concern over the lack of transparency and oversight in contracting processes during the pandemic. Dr. Emily Carter, a professor of public health at the University of London, noted that "the expedited procurement processes, while necessary during a crisis, must be accompanied by stringent standards to ensure public safety."

Looking ahead, the outcome of this trial could prompt significant reform in how government contracts are awarded, particularly in emergency scenarios. Should the court rule in favor of the government, it could set a precedent for accountability in public procurement practices, especially concerning health and safety compliance. Conversely, a ruling in favor of PPE Medpro may highlight the challenges of fulfilling contracts under pressure and the complexities of accountability in public health emergencies.

The High Court's decision will not only impact PPE Medpro and those directly involved but could also reverberate across the broader landscape of health and safety regulations in public procurement for years to come.