{"id":490589,"date":"2025-10-11T08:59:15","date_gmt":"2025-10-11T08:59:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/490589\/"},"modified":"2025-10-11T08:59:15","modified_gmt":"2025-10-11T08:59:15","slug":"will-uk-taxpayers-get-their-122m-back-from-ppe-medpro-michelle-mone","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/490589\/","title":{"rendered":"Will UK taxpayers get their \u00a3122m back from PPE Medpro? | Michelle Mone"},"content":{"rendered":"

The five-year unravelling of Britain\u2019s most high-profile Covid contracts scandal involving a baroness, her husband and multimillion-pound government deals accelerated last week with a high court judgment against the company linked to the former Tory peer Michelle Mone<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The judge, Mrs Justice Cockerill, ruled that PPE Medpro, owned by Mone\u2019s husband, the Isle of Man-based businessman Doug Barrowman, supplied defective personal protective equipment (PPE) for use in the NHS during the pandemic. Cockerill ordered that PPE Medpro must return the sum of \u00a3122m, which the Department of Health<\/a> and Social Care paid for the order of 25m sterile surgical gowns, under a contract awarded in June 2020 via the VIP lane.<\/p>\n

The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, hailed the judgment as vindication for the Labour government\u2019s stated determination<\/a> to recover some of the billions of pounds in public money wasted during the Covid crisis<\/a> by Boris Johnson\u2019s administration.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe want our money back. We are getting our money back,\u201d Reeves posted on X<\/a>. \u201cAnd it will go where it belongs \u2013 in our schools, NHS and communities.\u201d<\/p>\n

The June contract, and another worth \u00a380.85m to supply face masks, also paid for by the DHSC, were granted to PPE Medpro after Mone approached the then Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove<\/a> in May 2020. Her offer was processed via the \u201cVIP lane\u201d, the system operated by Johnson\u2019s government, giving priority to politically connected people such as Mone, treating them as more credible than experienced PPE suppliers. For years afterwards, Mone and Barrowman through their former lawyers denied involvement in PPE Medpro, until in late 2023 they acknowledged their roles and Mone admitted they had lied<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Michelle Mone first approached the the Cabinet Office minister, Michael Gove, in May 2020 with an offer to supply surgical equipment. Composite: Zuma Press Wire\/Rex\/Shutterstock\/Indigo\/Getty<\/p>\n

The gowns were rejected on inspection<\/a> in September 2020 at the NHS warehousing facilities in Daventry, Northamptonshire, because their labels were invalid, and also signalled that they had not been certified as sterile, a life-protecting requirement. Cockerill ordered that the \u00a3122m be repaid by 15 October.<\/p>\n

Yet in this apparent tale of British justice finally restoring taxpayers\u2019 millions paid out for unsafe medical supplies, there is a looming snag. The judgment is not against Barrowman personally, but his company, which has been left with very little money or assets. In fact, on 30 September, the day before Cockerill delivered her judgment, PPE Medpro Ltd was put into insolvency<\/a> and administrators appointed.<\/p>\n

So although the company has until Wednesday to repay the \u00a3122m, there appears no realistic possibility that it can. In a series of public statements since the judgment, Mone has accused Reeves of inflammatory language<\/a> after the chancellor jokingly confirmed that the government had \u201ca vendetta\u201d against the couple, and Barrowman has repeatedly said the judgment was wrong, \u201ca white wash [sic] of the facts\u201d. Neither had given any indication that they intended to fund the repayment of the money, until a new statement on Friday evening when their spokesperson said for the first time that the PPE Medpro \u201cconsortium\u201d was prepared to discuss \u201ca possible settlement with the government\u201d.<\/p>\n

In November 2022, the Guardian revealed that Barrowman had been paid at least \u00a365m<\/a> from PPE Medpro\u2019s profits, then transferred \u00a329m to a trust set up to benefit Mone and her three adult children. The couple said in a BBC interview<\/a> in December 2023 that Barrowman\u2019s children were also beneficiaries of the trust.<\/p>\n

In a statement on 4 October, Barrowman\u2019s spokesperson hit out at PPE Medpro\u2019s supply-chain companies, saying the administrator could bring legal claims against them. It is difficult to see the basis for this, given that PPE Medpro accepted the gowns five years ago and has always argued they complied with the DHSC contract. Barrowman describes PPE Medpro and its supply-chain companies as a consortium.<\/p>\n

Barrowman\u2019s spokesperson confirmed PPE Medpro\u2019s profits, saying of the \u00a3203m from the DHSC, the company paid \u00a3137m to the supply-chain companies to source and buy the PPE, which left a profit of \u00a366m for Barrowman\u2019s company. Of that, according to the spokesperson\u2019s figures, PPE Medpro made a \u00a339m profit on the contract for the gowns that were never used.<\/p>\n

However, although Barrowman made so much from the PPE Medpro deals, and the couple have over the years owned luxury yachts, a private jet<\/a> and prestige properties in different locations, there is no clear route to the government recovering even a penny after the judgment.<\/p>\n

The Guardian asked the couple\u2019s spokesperson this week <\/strong>if Barrowman intended to provide the \u00a3122m so that PPE Medpro could repay the DHSC. The spokesperson replied: \u201cWe are unable to comment on any matters that relate directly to PPE Medpro Ltd. This is not an attempt to avoid your questions. PPE Medpro is now in administration and only the administrators are able to comment on the company. It is vital to make clear, to avoid any misunderstanding, that the court case and subsequent ruling was against PPE Medpro, NOT Mr Barrowman.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Guardian asked the spokesperson to clarify if that meant Barrowman and Mone did not intend to fund the return of the \u00a3122m, or repay any of the money received from PPE Medpro profits. The spokesperson replied: \u201cThis is not what my statement said at all, and is a huge leap and incorrect for you to reach this conclusion. Let me be clear: \u2018At no stage have we stated that Mr Barrowman has no intention of making any payment to the DHSC. We have been clear that we cannot answer any questions regarding PPE Medpro.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Michelle Mone and her husband, Doug Barrowman. Photograph: Jeff Moore\/PA Media<\/p>\n

The spokesperson added: \u201cFurthermore, you include Baroness Mone \u2013 why? She received no money from the DHSC contract. Her involvement as an introducer was fully disclosed to the DHSC \u2026 so to connect her and suggest she must repay money simply because she is married to Mr Barrowman is both unfair and disingenuous and shows that you have a personal\/public agenda against her.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the new statement sent on Friday evening, Barrowman\u2019s spokesperson said: \u201cThe consortium partners of PPE Medpro are prepared to enter into a dialogue with the administrators of the company to discuss a possible settlement with the government.\u201d<\/p>\n

PPE Medpro is now bust \u2013 put into administration by Perree Ptc, a private trust company linked to Barrowman registered in the British Virgin Islands tax haven, which had a mortgage-style charge against the company. Barrowman\u2019s spokesperson did not respond to questions about Perree, or the circumstances in which it had put the company into administration.<\/p>\n

The whole legal basis for limited companies is to protect the people who have put money in from becoming personally liable for all its debts: to give the owners limited liability. If Barrowman, who described himself in the 2023 BBC interview as the ultimate beneficial owner of PPE Medpro, and who received \u00a365m in profits, does not wish to pay the DHSC, the legal routes to enforcing the judgment appear difficult.<\/p>\n

There are only narrow circumstances in which an administrator or somebody owed money, the government in this case, can get behind a company\u2019s limited liability \u2013 \u201cpierce the corporate veil\u201d in legal terminology \u2013 and enforce payment from directors or shareholders.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is no obvious, easy route to recover money from any individuals behind the company in this case,\u201d Simon Walsh, a commercial litigation partner at SA Law<\/a>, said. \u201cThe circumstances for piercing the corporate veil can include where an administrator proves that transactions have been improper, or fraudulent. This may not apply here and investigating it will inevitably be costly, complex and time-consuming. There is a real risk of a pyrrhic victory for the government in this case.\u201d<\/p>\n

It appears that any process for seeking repayment of the \u00a3122m is separate to the long-running investigation by the National Crime Agency into PPE Medpro and whether Mone and Barrowman may have committed criminal offences, including fraud by false representation<\/a>, in the procurement of the contracts. The couple deny any criminal wrongdoing.<\/p>\n

The NCA has confirmed that it began its investigation in May 2021, and in April the following year law enforcement officers raided the couple\u2019s mansion<\/a> on the Isle of Man and their London home, as well as the PPE Medpro offices. In December 2023, Mone and Barrowman agreed to a freezing order<\/a> of more than \u00a375m worth of assets, including bank accounts, wealth management accounts and shares held in companies owning luxury properties, after an application by the Crown Prosecution Service under the Proceeds of Crime Act.<\/p>\n

The NCA has not provided any detailed information about the time it is taking or when the CPS might decide whether there will be any criminal charges. PPE Medpro\u2019s barrister, Charles Samek KC, complained during the high court trial<\/a> that the NCA investigation was \u201clong-running and seemingly never-ending\u201d, and \u201changing \u2026 like Damocles\u2019 sword\u201d over the company \u201cwithout ever seemingly being progressed\u201d.<\/p>\n

In response to questions about how long it was taking, the NCA has said in a statement: \u201cInvestigations must pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry. In serious economic crime investigations these lines of inquiry can be incredibly complex. It can take considerable time to ensure that a thorough, independent and objective investigation is conducted.\u201d<\/p>\n

Illustration: Guardian Design<\/p>\n

Reeves has insisted the government is determined to recover money lost in failed pandemic spending, pointing to the establishment of the Covid counter-fraud commissioner<\/a> among other initiatives. In the PPE Medpro case, however, it risks having spent more millions for an expert legal team led by Paul Stanley KC to win a hard-fought \u00a3122m judgment it cannot enforce. Government sources have not provided any information about what it might do if the money is not paid on Wednesday.<\/p>\n

The DHSC has declined to expand on the comments of the health secretary, Wes Streeting, who said on the day of the judgment: \u201cPPE Medpro must now repay the government and the taxpayer \u00a3122m. My department will work closely with PPE Medpro Limited\u2019s administrators to recover everything we can.\u201d<\/p>\n

Daniel Bruce, the chief executive of Transparency International UK, a key member of the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition<\/a> which was a core participant in the Covid public inquiry into the pandemic contracts debacle, said: \u201cThere appear to be very few levers the government has available to recover anything close to the \u00a3122m the high court has ordered PPE Medpro to repay. The whole case stands as a further indictment of the \u2018VIP lane\u2019 and the flawed, wasteful procurement of PPE during the pandemic.\u201d<\/p>\n

This saga of the Conservative peer, her businessman husband, Johnson\u2019s Tory government and the multimillion-pound Covid contracts has some way to run yet.<\/p>\n

Quick GuideHow to contact our investigations teamShow\"\"<\/p>\n

The best public interest journalism relies on first-hand accounts from people in the know.<\/p>\n

If you have something to share on this subject you can contact our investigations team confidentially using the following methods.<\/p>\n

Secure Messaging in the Guardian app<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Guardian app has a tool to send tips about stories. Messages are end to end encrypted and concealed within the routine activity that every Guardian mobile app performs. This prevents an observer from knowing that you are communicating with us at all, let alone what is being said.<\/p>\n

If you don’t already have the Guardian app, download it (iOS<\/a>\/Android<\/a>) and go to the app menu. Pick \u2018Secure Messaging\u2019, follow the instructions to compose your message and select \u2018UK Investigations Team\u2019 as the recipient.<\/p>\n

SecureDrop, instant messengers, email, telephone and post<\/strong><\/p>\n

If you can safely use the tor network without being observed or monitored you can send messages and documents to the Guardian via our SecureDrop platform<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Finally, our guide at theguardian.com\/tips<\/a>\u00a0lists several ways to contact us securely, and discusses the pros and cons of each.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Illustration: Guardian Design \/ Rich Cousins<\/p>\n

Thank you for your feedback.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The five-year unravelling of Britain\u2019s most high-profile Covid contracts scandal involving a baroness, her husband and multimillion-pound government…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":490590,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,4],"tags":[12,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-490589","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-uk","8":"category-united-kingdom","9":"tag-news","10":"tag-uk","11":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/490589","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=490589"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/490589\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/490590"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=490589"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=490589"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=490589"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}