"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" ."
"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 ."
PPE Medpro proposed two no-fault resolutions to the £122 million dispute: a complete remake of 25 million sterile gowns at no cost, and a £23 million cash settlement funded by its principal backer. The proposals were first made in December 2022, repeated shortly before the June 2025 trial, and reiterated mid-trial. The Department of Health and Social Care declined both offers without a counter-proposal. PPE Medpro says the rejections added about £5 million in taxpayer legal costs and describes the dispute as politically motivated. The government settled a separate Primerdesign dispute on a no-fault basis for £5 million.
Read at Business Matters
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]