The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) rejected two major settlement offers from PPE Medpro, including a complete remake of 25 million sterile gowns or a £23 million payment, Business Matters can exclusively reveal.
The offers, both made on a no-fault basis, were tabled first in December 2022, then again shortly before the trial began in June 2025 — and even reiterated mid-trial, as the dispute over the £122 million PPE contract played out in the High Court.
Despite the potential to resolve the case without admitting liability, the DHSC declined both options — a decision which, according to PPE Medpro, has cost taxpayers a further £5 million in legal fees and prolongs what the company describes as a political attempt to “scapegoat” its directors and backers .
“We were prepared to remake the full order or pay £23 million. These substantial offers were rejected,” a PPE Medpro spokesperson told Business Matters. “This was never about gowns — it’s about shielding failures in the DHSC and deflecting scrutiny from senior politicians” .
According to documents now seen by Business Matters, PPE Medpro made the following offers to the DHSC:
- June 2025: Offered to remake the full 25 million gown order via its Chinese manufacturer, at no cost to the government and without admitting fault .
- 23 June 2025: Offered a cash settlement of £23 million, with funds made available through its principal backer, in what was described as a “final opportunity” to settle before judgment .
The government rejected both offers without counter-proposal. This is in stark contrast to how it resolved a separate £135 million dispute with Primerdesign Ltd, which was settled quietly on a no-fault basis for just £5 million, weeks before its scheduled trial .
A £122 million claim and £5 million cost to taxpayers
The DHSC’s claim alleges that the gowns supplied by PPE Medpro during the pandemic were not sterile. Medpro has repeatedly denied any breach of contract, arguing instead that any gown contamination occurred after delivery while the gowns were under DHSC’s control.
The company has cited a series of failures in gown handling, storage and inspection — including containers stored in open fields for over a year, and gown testing carried out more than 500 days after delivery .
Medpro argues that the government’s rejection of its offers — particularly in light of its admitted stockpile of 10 years’ worth of surgical gowns, most with only two-year shelf lives — is evidence that the litigation is not financially or operationally motivated, but political.
Barrowman and Mone targeted?
The case has drawn intense media scrutiny due to PPE Medpro’s links to businessman Doug Barrowman and his wife, Baroness Michelle Mone, who has been the subject of both political and public criticism since the contract became public knowledge.
Medpro now claims the firm has been “singled out” by government for political reasons — noting that the DHSC knew the company had limited funds, and yet continued to pursue full recovery through a costly trial.
“This litigation is a clear case of buyer’s remorse, long after the event,” the company said in its final settlement letter. “It has been about scapegoating PPE Medpro and its consortium backer… to protect other very significant Conservative politicians from coming under scrutiny” .
What happens next?
The trial concluded in late July, and Mrs Justice Cockerill is expected to deliver her judgment before October. If the court rules in PPE Medpro’s favour, it will raise serious questions over the DHSC’s decision to reject an offer worth nearly a fifth of the full claim value, and why a similar dispute was quietly settled elsewhere.
As the dust settles, the government could face renewed pressure — not only over its pandemic-era procurement practices, but also over how it chooses which companies to pursue, and at what cost to the public purse.
“We tried, repeatedly, to settle this matter,” a PPE Medpro spokesperson said. “It’s now up to the court — but the consequences of this case go far beyond our company.”
Paul Jones
Harvard alumni and former New York Times journalist. Editor of Business Matters for over 15 years, the UKs largest business magazine. I am also head of Capital Business Media’s automotive division working for clients such as Red Bull Racing, Honda, Aston Martin and Infiniti.
