The High Court trial between PPE Medpro and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) drew to a close on its twelfth day, as the defence delivered a final volley of arguments accusing the government of failing to mitigate its alleged losses, relying on “unevidenced” cost claims, and ultimately using PPE Medpro as a scapegoat for pandemic-era procurement mismanagement.
In his final remarks, Charles Samek KC, counsel for PPE Medpro, reinforced the core message of the defence: that the DHSC’s case amounts to little more than “buyer’s remorse” and that the department has not met the burden of proof required to justify its £122 million breach of contract claim.
“It would, we respectfully submit, be a mistake… to assume that the Department’s starting point and perspective is the right one,” Samek told Mrs Justice Cockerill, urging her to consider the context of the original contract: a global pandemic, not a post-hoc procurement audit.
Samek returned to a key point raised throughout the trial — that even if the gowns had been rejected, the DHSC failed to repurpose or resell them, despite expert evidence showing that market demand remained high well into 2021.
He referenced the testimony of Igor Popovic, PPE Medpro’s expert on valuation, who told the court that the gowns could have fetched up to £85 million on the non-sterile PPE market if the government had acted in time.
Support authors and subscribe to content
This is premium stuff. Subscribe to read the entire article.
