High Court rules PPE contract 'VIP lane' was unlawful
The High Court heard the Government "prioritised suppliers because of who they knew, not what they could deliver"
Last updated 12th Jan 2022
The High Court has ruled that the Government’s operation of a fast-track VIP lane for awarding lucrative personal protective equipment (PPE) contracts to those with political connections was unlawful.
The Good Law Project and EveryDoctor took legal action over nearly £600 million of contracts awarded to pest control firm PestFix and hedge fund Ayanda Capital at the height of the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic.
The High Court was told a 'VIP lane' was reserved for referrals from MPs, ministers and senior officials, with the campaigners arguing the Government "prioritised suppliers including PestFix and Ayanda because of who they knew, not what they could deliver".
The Court noted that the a large amount of product supplied by Pestfix and Ayanda could not be used in the NHS.
The Department of Health and Social Care contested the claim
In a judgment today (12th January), Mrs Justice O'Farrell said the use of the 'VIP lane' was unlawful.
However, she found both of the companies' offers "justified priority treatment on its merits" and were "very likely" to have been awarded contracts even without the VIP lane.
Mrs Justice O'Farrell said: "Even if PestFix and Ayanda had not been allocated to the high priority lane, nevertheless they would have been treated as priority offers because of the substantial volumes of PPE they could supply that were urgently needed."
The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) had contested the claim, telling the court it "wholeheartedly" rejected the case against it and that the VIP lane was rational and resulted in a "large number of credible offers" in an environment where PPE deals often failed within "minutes".
At a hearing last May, the Good Law Project and EveryDoctor argued a VIP supplier was "more than 10 times as likely" to get a contract compared to a non-VIP supplier.
Mrs Justice O'Farrell said DHSC's evidence "establishes that presence on the high priority lane did not confer any advantage at the decision-making stage of the process".
She continued: "However, what is clear is that offers that were introduced through the senior referrers received earlier consideration at the outset of the process.
"The high priority lane team was better resourced and able to respond to such offers on the same day that they arrived, in contrast to the opportunities team, where the sheer volume of offers prevented such swift consideration."
She later said: "Timeous consideration of an offer was a material advantage in obtaining the award of a contract given the urgency of the procurement."
Mrs Justice O'Farrell also found "sufficient financial due diligence" was carried out in respect of both sets of contracts.