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.
