In its opening submissions, PPE Medpro claims the government is unfairly targeting the firm to deflect attention from its own errors during the emergency procurement frenzy. The company’s legal team argues that DHSC approved the surgical gowns it supplied, despite knowing full well that they did not bear CE markings with a notified body (NB) number—technical requirements usually mandatory under medical device regulations, but waived under emergency rules at the time.
The defence pivots on the claim that PPE Medpro offered the gowns under what was known as an “equivalent technical solution,” a route explicitly permitted by the UK government’s own guidance during the pandemic. The firm says DHSC’s technical assurance team signed off on this basis and never indicated that a formal derogation or notified body certification was necessary prior to contract approval.
“Gowns have been approved by Technical!” an email from a DHSC official to PPE Medpro read at the time, indicating departmental consent. This, the company argues, confirms that the government accepted the technical and regulatory basis of the order. PPE Medpro also asserts that the gown packaging was clearly marked and that DHSC—or its logistics agent Uniserve—had the opportunity to inspect the goods upon collection in China but failed to do so .
The government has alleged that the gowns were unfit for use, citing later sterility tests in the UK. But PPE Medpro has dismissed those results as irrelevant, arguing that the tests were conducted on expired or poorly stored items long after delivery—potentially contaminating the samples. The firm adds that independent experts agreed the unusual mix of microorganisms found in the tested gowns pointed to contamination during storage and transport, not manufacturing .
In a striking accusation, PPE Medpro claims it has been singled out among hundreds of Covid suppliers, possibly due to the high-profile connections of its backers and the perception of its financial capacity to pay back funds. The firm also points to a wider “campaign of pressure,” alleging that the civil case is running in parallel with a “never-ending” National Crime Agency investigation that is yet to yield charges.
“The DHSC is attempting to retroactively rewrite the rules of engagement,” the submission argues. “This is a textbook case of a government seeking to claw back money from a contract it regrets, despite the fact it knew exactly what it was buying.”
The legal row centres around a £122 million order for 25 million sterile surgical gowns, delivered in 2020. The DHSC rejected the gowns months later, citing concerns over CE marking and sterility—despite having passed them through its technical assurance process and cleared the contract through internal approval committees, including sign-off by then-senior civil servant David Williams .
The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for pandemic-era procurement disputes and future government use of emergency powers. With billions of pounds’ worth of PPE still unused in storage, the trial is being closely watched as a bellwether for accountability.
The case continues.
