Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Business

PPE Medpro delivers scathing closing in DHSC case, accusing government of buyer’s remorse and scapegoating

by July 8, 2025
July 8, 2025
PPE Medpro delivers scathing closing in DHSC case, accusing government of buyer’s remorse and scapegoating

The High Court trial between PPE Medpro and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) drew towards its conclusion today, with a blistering set of closing submissions from the defence that portrayed the government’s £122 million claim as a desperate attempt to deflect attention from its own pandemic procurement failures.

Describing the case as “no more than opportunistic,” PPE Medpro’s legal team argued that the DHSC had never needed the 25 million surgical gowns in question, and that its claim was built on weak evidence, flawed assumptions, and a refusal to accept responsibility for a chaotic PPE stockpile that had spiralled out of control.

“This is a textbook case of buyer’s remorse,” the defence said, “where the DHSC is looking for ways to escape from a contract it wished it had never made.”

The closing submissions highlighted that by December 2020, the government had amassed around 500 weeks’ worth of surgical gown stock—close to a decade’s supply—according to its own witnesses. Rather than putting the PPE Medpro gowns to use, the DHSC simply warehoused them across the UK, including in open-air container parks and fields, where they remained for more than 18 months.

Despite the oversupply, the DHSC made no attempt to repackage, reclassify or resell the gowns, even as non-sterile PPE—an option experts said could have recovered up to £85 million. This, PPE Medpro said, was a deliberate decision not to mitigate its losses.

“The DHSC made no attempt to minimise or mitigate its loss… because by December 2020 it had already obtained 500 weeks’ worth of gowns stock,” the defence stated.

Medpro also pushed back hard on the DHSC’s key claims regarding gown compliance and sterility. The government had alleged that the gowns lacked the proper CE marking and failed to meet the EN 556-1 sterilisation standard. But, Medpro said, both points had been debunked during the trial.

The CE mark box was never ticked on the government’s own order form, and witnesses confirmed that the gowns had been approved by the DHSC’s own Technical Assurance team without CE certification. If the government had required more information at the time, it could—and should—have asked.

“PPE Medpro never provided a valid CE mark in respect of the gowns and its offer was approved on that basis,” the defence asserted.

On sterility, Medpro said the government’s claims were equally unsustainable. Testing took place more than 500 days after delivery, and only 60 gowns were tested out of 25 million. The gowns had been stored in unknown and uncontrolled conditions, and the microorganisms discovered on them—including strains found in the Pacific Ocean, the Mojave Desert, and even space—were more consistent with environmental contamination after delivery.

“The DHSC has not provided a credible explanation as to how all these bacteria were present in the factory in China,” said the defence.

In a marked shift, the DHSC has now pivoted its case to argue that none of the seven sterilisation plants used by Medpro—one operated by a global US firm—had properly validated processes, a claim described in court as relying on “fantastical assumptions.”

The defence also lambasted the DHSC for its failure to produce basic documentation or witnesses who could explain what happened to the gowns during their time under government custody.

“The DHSC has failed to call a single witness who could provide any evidence relating to the transportation, storage and handling of the gowns,” the submission noted.

This lack of transparency was compounded by repeated changes to the government’s case during the trial—particularly its shifting position on inspection dates, sterility criteria, and its abandonment of an earlier claim about improper gown packaging.

In a final flourish, PPE Medpro accused the government of attempting to make the company a scapegoat to deflect criticism of its own procurement strategy during the height of the pandemic.

“PPE Medpro has been made a fall guy for government failings… to shield others from criticism and distract from the vast over-ordering of gowns.”

The defence also noted that the company had faced “seemingly endless investigations” by the National Crime Agency (NCA), which they argued had had a chilling effect on Medpro’s ability to gather documents for its defence.

“The Damoclean threat of criminal proceedings” had cast a long shadow over the case, they said.

The High Court will now deliberate, with a judgment expected in due course. If the court sides with PPE Medpro, it could prove to be a significant setback not only for the DHSC’s attempts to recoup pandemic spending, but for the credibility of its procurement practices under emergency conditions.

For now, one thing is clear: after nine days of testimony and cross-examination, the DHSC’s case rests on a fragile foundation—much like the container parks in which its surplus stock was left to sit.

Read more:
PPE Medpro delivers scathing closing in DHSC case, accusing government of buyer’s remorse and scapegoating

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
DeSantis not keen on Musk’s new political party, has another idea for disrupting DC
next post
Monzo fined £21m after fraudsters open accounts using ‘Buckingham Palace’ as home address

You may also like

Export dreams come true as government support secures...

August 31, 2023

How to start a creative video production agency:...

July 18, 2023

UK’s Energy Security at Risk Due to Political...

June 28, 2024

Nationwide Customers to Receive £385 Million Windfall After...

May 23, 2024

Mike Ashley’s Frasers Group snaps up Luton mall...

March 18, 2023

Budget ‘weighing on growth’, warns Bank of England

December 20, 2024

Economists suggest wealth taxes could generate £10bn to...

July 29, 2024

Mostly AI launches $100k global challenge to spotlight...

June 12, 2025

Labour eases planning rules to boost solar and...

August 5, 2024

Richard Branson offers Alan Bates ‘well-earned’ break on...

January 9, 2024

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • ‘Bait and switch’: Schumer warns of bitter funding fight over GOP cuts plan

      July 8, 2025
    • UK Government unveils £92bn transport overhaul to drive growth and connect communities

      July 8, 2025
    • New book exposes Jill Biden’s power grab amid husband’s political demise

      July 8, 2025
    • Tariff Shock Spurs “Buy-the-Dip” Setups in Tesla and ON Semiconductor

      July 8, 2025
    • Trump’s tariffs send UK borrowing costs soaring, forcing Reeves to rethink economic roadmap

      July 8, 2025
    • Government bans NDAs that silence harassment and discrimination victims

      July 8, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,421)
    • Investing (2,105)
    • Politics (15,967)
    • Stocks (3,193)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved