[TECH AND FINANCIAL]
Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Medical supplies group PPE Medpro breached a multimillion-pound state contract when it supplied “unsafe” equipment during the Covid-19 pandemic, the High Court heard on Wednesday.
Lawyers for the government alleged the company — which was recommended for government contracts by Conservative peer Baroness Michelle Mone — had supplied £122mn of kit that was unfit for use.
A large proportion of the 25mn medical gowns supplied by the company were not sterile and not adequately packaged, they said on the opening day of the highly anticipated trial.
The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) sued PPE Medpro in 2022, alleging a breach of contract. The company has denied the claims.
The contract drew public attention as it was secured through the Conservative party’s controversial Covid-era “VIP lane”, which fast-tracked potential suppliers of personal protective equipment that had links with politicians or government officials.
Mone, a lingerie entrepreneur who was ennobled by Lord David Cameron in 2015, had during the pandemic lobbied ministers to give the lucrative contracts to the company owned by a consortium led by her husband Doug Barrowman.
Mone admitted in 2023 that she stood to gain from profits of about £60mn that PPE Medpro made from its government contracts.
Government lawyers said PPE Medpro would call no factual witnesses during the trial, meaning neither Mone nor Barrowman will have to answer questions about the case before the court.
“The decision not to call witnesses leaves striking gaps in Medpro’s case, notably in relation to reliance, alleged mistake, and the manufacturing and sterilisation process”, government lawyers said in their opening statement.
The DHSC alleged that the company gave invalid information about the health and safety of the protective equipment it provided for the use of medical staff during the coronavirus pandemic.
“The process followed by Medpro was not a validated process compliant with any applicable standard,” said the claimant statement. “Nor did it in fact result in the gowns being sterile.”
The health department alleges that the “CE mark” stamped on the delivery of medical gowns — which certifies that a product has been tested by an accredited body — was not valid because it did not indicate which body had performed the accreditation.
Through independent tests, the government later found that in a sample of 140 PPE Medpro medical gowns, 103 were not sterile. The delivery was ultimately rejected.
The government is seeking repayment of £122mn for the gowns, along with additional costs incurred as part of the case.
Government lawyers stated that PPE Medpro did not disclose several evidence documents relevant to the trial, including certain internal communications as well as contracts with the Chinese manufacturer and sterilisation plants used by the company.
In the defendant’s statement released to the court, PPE Medpro said it “has perhaps been singled out because of the high profiles of those said to be associated with [the company]”, a reference to Mone.
It claimed its gowns — manufactured in China — were accepted as suitable upon delivery, and said the DHSC was at fault for having “rushed into contacts” amid the PPE crisis during the pandemic.
In a statement issued outside of court proceedings, PPE Medpro said the company “categorically denies breaching its obligations to DHSC in the supply of sterile surgical gowns during the Covid pandemic, and it will robustly defend these claims in court”.
[NEWS]
Source link
