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

Future Retirement Success

Business

PPE Medpro trial ends with defence accusing DHSC of ‘bad claim’ and pandemic scapegoating

by July 11, 2025
July 11, 2025
PPE Medpro trial ends with defence accusing DHSC of ‘bad claim’ and pandemic scapegoating

The High Court trial between PPE Medpro and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) drew to a close on its twelfth day, as the defence delivered a final volley of arguments accusing the government of failing to mitigate its alleged losses, relying on “unevidenced” cost claims, and ultimately using PPE Medpro as a scapegoat for pandemic-era procurement mismanagement.

In his final remarks, Charles Samek KC, counsel for PPE Medpro, reinforced the core message of the defence: that the DHSC’s case amounts to little more than “buyer’s remorse” and that the department has not met the burden of proof required to justify its £122 million breach of contract claim.

“It would, we respectfully submit, be a mistake… to assume that the Department’s starting point and perspective is the right one,” Samek told Mrs Justice Cockerill, urging her to consider the context of the original contract: a global pandemic, not a post-hoc procurement audit.

Samek returned to a key point raised throughout the trial — that even if the gowns had been rejected, the DHSC failed to repurpose or resell them, despite expert evidence showing that market demand remained high well into 2021.

He referenced the testimony of Igor Popovic, PPE Medpro’s expert on valuation, who told the court that the gowns could have fetched up to £85 million on the non-sterile PPE market if the government had acted in time.

“There was good demand worldwide for gowns,” Samek said. “There was good prospect of a sale for the DHSC.”

Following this, PPE Medpro’s junior counsel Ashley Cukier addressed the government’s claim for storage costs, arguing that the figures had been presented late in the process and were based on incomplete and unreliable evidence.

“The only witness put forward by the Department on the question of storage costs was Mr Bates,” Cukier noted. “He fairly admitted he was not the author of the spreadsheet. He had no substantive involvement in the production of it.”

Cukier then highlighted the extraordinary inconsistencies in the spreadsheet relied upon by the DHSC, including unexplained drops in gown quantities from one week to the next — including reductions of 1 million and 4 million gowns.

“He was unable to give any cogent explanation,” Cukier said. “It is an unevidenced claim. It is a bad claim, and one we say should fail.”

He also reminded the court that the DHSC had already abandoned its original claim for disposal costs.

In summing up, Samek warned against the risk of favouring the government’s version of events simply because it comes with institutional authority. He stressed that the trial had shown Medpro’s actions were transparent and contractually compliant — and that the real issue lay with the DHSC’s own mismanagement.

“Both parties approach this case from completely different starting points. Our case starts with the actual circumstances that existed at the time of entering into the contract — which was the pandemic emergency,” he said.

After PPE Medpro concluded its closing argument, Paul Stanley KC, representing the DHSC, offered a brief oral reply, defending the government’s position.

With all evidence and submissions now complete, Mrs Justice Cockerill confirmed that her judgment will be handed down before October.

The outcome will not only determine the fate of this high-profile £122 million claim, but could also have significant ramifications for how pandemic-era procurement disputes are viewed — and whether private contractors can be held accountable for government decisions made under emergency conditions.

Read more:
PPE Medpro trial ends with defence accusing DHSC of ‘bad claim’ and pandemic scapegoating

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
MPs warn UK must not weaken listing rules for Shein amid human rights concerns
next post
Biden cover-up probe heats up as another ex-White House aide sits down with GOP

You may also like

Number of restaurants and food outlets entering liquidation...

November 8, 2022

Vinted triples profits to £80m as second-hand fashion...

May 14, 2025

Leveragesix.com Review | How LeverageSix Shapes a More...

December 8, 2023

UK economy posts strongest growth in a year,...

May 15, 2025

MindStir Media – Is It A Legit Book...

May 11, 2025

The Rural Recruitment Struggle: Finding the Right Staff...

March 31, 2025

Lessons from Cineworld’s restructuring?

June 20, 2023

SMEs face tough decisions on which subscription services...

July 29, 2022

How to show real appreciation in the workplace

April 2, 2024

Getting to Know You: Jesse Swash, Co-Founder of...

August 8, 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

    • Trump repositions 2 nuclear submarines after ‘highly provocative’ Russian comments

      August 1, 2025
    • Trump endorses ‘MAGA warrior’ for RNC chairman after Whatley launches Senate campaign

      August 1, 2025
    • Friday Feature: Thales Academy

      August 1, 2025
    • Trump ends de minimis tariff exemption, hitting UK exporters and global e-commerce

      August 1, 2025
    • Aston Martin sells F1 team stake for $146m amid financial struggles

      August 1, 2025
    • China’s growing nuclear arsenal aims to break US alliances and dominate Asia, report warns

      August 1, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,651)
    • Investing (2,167)
    • Politics (16,277)
    • Stocks (3,228)
    • 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