The ninth day of the ongoing High Court trial between PPE Medpro and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) turned attention to the government’s handling of surplus PPE stock—specifically, why no effort was made to repurpose or sell the £122 million-worth of gowns supplied by PPE Medpro.
Two expert witnesses, Andrew New for the DHSC and Igor Popovic for PPE Medpro, gave conflicting views on what could—and should—have been done with the gowns once delivered.
Andrew New, chief executive of Supply Chain Coordination Limited (SCCL), the body tasked with managing PPE distribution during the pandemic, confirmed that by December 2020, the UK government held an excess of approximately 500 weeks’—or nearly 10 years’—worth of surgical gowns.
“That is correct,” New admitted, when asked whether the stockpile reached half a millennium of weekly demand.
Despite this oversupply, New confirmed that no effort had been made to repurpose or resell the PPE Medpro gowns, which were delivered to government agents in 2020. He argued that repackaging and relabelling would have been impractical and uneconomic, given the broader logistical challenges faced during the pandemic.
“It’s not just a question of would you pay the money,” he said. “Would you divert management attention to that activity whilst managing other complex tasks?”
Pressed further by PPE Medpro’s counsel Ashley Cukier, New conceded that any third-party buyer would require access to documentation on the product’s specifications and storage history. Yet DHSC has failed to disclose any such information in court — a core issue raised repeatedly throughout the trial.
“If I was buying the product… I would expect to be able to see those records if I needed it,” New acknowledged.
Economist and former NHS adviser Igor Popovic, appearing for PPE Medpro, laid out a very different scenario. In his expert valuation report, Popovic concluded that the gowns could have been sold on the UK market as non-sterile surgical gowns, even if they were not compliant with sterility standards.
After accounting for repackaging and relabelling costs, he estimated the net resale value at £85.8 million.
“Subtracting the cost of repackaging and relabelling (£16,250,130)… I arrive at the net value point estimate in this scenario of £85,816,820,” his report stated.
Popovic also criticised the government for waiting until 2022 to begin selling off excess PPE, by which point prices and demand had plummeted. He noted that earlier resale attempts—during periods of higher demand—could have recouped significantly more taxpayer money.
“It is not clear to me why the Claimant only began selling off excess stock… in 2022,” he wrote. “When the demand and price for PPE were significantly reduced, rather than at a time of high demand.”
The testimony builds on PPE Medpro’s broader argument that the DHSC failed to mitigate its own losses. Despite rejecting the gowns, the government made no attempt to assess their usability in non-sterile settings, explore resale options, or retrieve documentation to facilitate any onward use — all actions that might have reduced the alleged financial exposure.
That failure, PPE Medpro contends, not only undermines the government’s breach of contract claim but also points to a wider pattern of poor inventory management and missed opportunities to recover public funds.
As the High Court trial moves into its final stages, questions around the government’s decision-making, transparency, and post-delivery handling of PPE Medpro’s gowns continue to dominate proceedings.
The central question remains: was this a breach of contract by a supplier — or a failure of oversight by the state?