Baroness Mone's PPE Firm Faces £122 Million Legal Battle Over Pandemic Contracts
Mone's PPE firm faces £122m government legal claim

The Department of Health and Social Care has launched legal proceedings against PPE Medpro, the company linked to Conservative peer Michelle Mone and her husband Doug Barrowman, seeking to recover a staggering £122 million.

The High Court battle centres around allegations that the consortium failed to meet contractual requirements for millions of surgical gowns supplied during the height of the pandemic. The government claims the equipment did not meet required technical standards and was delivered outside the agreed timeframe.

The VIP Lane Controversy

PPE Medpro was one of several companies that benefited from the government's controversial "VIP lane" for pandemic procurement. Baroness Mone had referred the company to ministers through the fast-track process, though she has consistently denied any direct involvement in the company's operations.

The company secured two contracts worth over £200 million in 2020 to supply personal protective equipment during the critical shortage period. The current legal action focuses specifically on the £122 million contract for 25 million sterile gowns.

Mounting Legal Pressure

This development represents a significant escalation in the long-running controversy surrounding pandemic procurement. The National Crime Agency has been conducting a separate investigation into the dealings between PPE Medpro and the government since 2021.

Both Mone and Barrowman have maintained their innocence throughout, insisting they have done nothing wrong. Their legal representatives have indicated they will vigorously defend against the government's claims.

Political Fallout Continues

The case has raised serious questions about the transparency and efficiency of the government's emergency procurement processes during the pandemic. Opposition parties have repeatedly called for greater accountability regarding how billions of pounds were allocated to private companies for COVID-19 supplies.

As the legal process unfolds, this case is likely to remain under intense public and political scrutiny, representing one of the most significant post-pandemic accountability battles.