On its face, the Department of Health and Social Care v PPE Medpro Limited was not a case about Michelle Mone, or VIP fast lanes, or the politics and profiteering of the pandemic years.

Rather, as the DHSC’s barrister made clear on the first morning of the first day of hearings, it was about 25 million surgical gowns sold to the NHS for £122m. Were they, or were they not, appropriately certified as sterile, and thus fit for use?

The answer, unequivocally according to Lady Justice Cockerill’s judgment, was no, leaving PPE Medpro in breach of contract, and liable to repay just short of £122m.

This case was always going to be about more than dusty contract law however. By targeting the company founded and controlled by Doug Barrowman, the husband of Baroness Mone, the DHSC was taking on the couple who encapsulated the COVID PPE scandal.

Her public profile as the media-friendly lingerie entrepreneur ennobled by David Cameron, blithely sharing snaps from the Lady M yacht while the country endured lockdown, and her husband’s repeated hollow denials, made them the faces of that failure.

PPE Medpro won more than £200m of contracts only after Baroness Mone used her political contacts, including Michael Gove, to introduce the firm to the government’s VIP ‘fast lane’ and short-circuit normal procurement rules.

She did so on the same day in May 2020 that her husband Doug Barrowman incorporated the company, and then lobbied hard over the next six months to see the deal completed. The judge described her as PPE Medpro’s “big gun”, deployed when civil servants were perceived to be holding up the deal.

When challenged the pair then lied for more than two years about their links to the company, only admitting their role after dogged reporting by The Guardian revealed not just her role in lobbying on its behalf, but the extraction of more than £65m in profit.

When challenged in a BBC interview and a self-funded documentary, Mone said that while she regretted not admitting her role, lying to journalists was not a crime.

The couple’s response to the ruling was in keeping with their approach throughout. The day before the judgment PPE Medpro filed to enter administration, with accounts showing assets of just £666,000, ensuring that any discussion about repayment will be with the administrator, not Mr Barrowman.

Read more from Sky News:
Starmer says he will take ‘no more lectures’ from Farage
Energy price cap warning as latest rise takes effect

Baroness Mone meanwhile took to social media to claim the couple had been “scapegoated and vilified” for wider failings, and shared correspondence in which they offered to settle the case for £23m.

After the judgment was delivered the baroness called it “an Establishment win”, while Mr Barrowman, whose company offered no factual evidence in court and was not called as a witness, called it a “travesty of justice”.

Labour ministers, led by the chancellor, praised the court’s independence even as they celebrated a judgment which, if nothing else, may remind voters of the chaos of the Boris Johnson years.

Getting the money back, the central point of the legal exercise, will be harder than stirring bad memories.

The DHSC has appointed lawyers to try and help it “recover every penny” but it is unclear how that can be achieved given Medpro’s administration.

It could choose to pursue Mr Barrowman, who boasted of huge wealth earned in fintech and lived a lifestyle to match, but it is unclear how, and whether he still has the means.

The National Crime Agency has frozen £75m of the couple’s assets as part of its ongoing investigation, and the couple are reported to have sold homes and other assets in recent years.

Asked if they might repay the profits earned, or at least the £23m offered in settlement, Mr Barrowan’s spokesman told Sky News: “The DHSC would have to negotiate with the administrators, but the backers of PPE Medpro have always tried to negotiate with DHSC and they’re happy to engage.”

The US government has shut down for the first time in almost seven years after last-ditch Senate votes on funding plans fell short.

Hundreds of thousands of federal workers deemed not essential for protecting people or property – such as law enforcement personnel – could be furloughed or laid off after the shutdown began at midnight (5am UK time).

Critical services, including social security payments and the postal service, will keep operating but may suffer from worker shortages, while national parks and museums could be among the sectors that close completely.

Explained: What is a shutdown and who does it impact?

It comes after rival Democrats and Republicans refused to budge in their stand-off over healthcare spending.

A Democrat-led proposal to keep the government funded went down by 53 votes to 47 in the Senate, before the Republicans’ one notched up 55 in favour – five short of the threshold needed to avert a shutdown.

Unlike legislation, a simple majority isn’t enough to pass a government funding bill.

Following the votes in Washington DC on Tuesday night, the White House’s budget office confirmed the shutdown would happen and said affected agencies “should now execute their plans”.

It blamed the Democrats, describing their position as “untenable”. The opposition party wants to reverse cuts to the government’s health insurance programme, Medicaid, which were passed earlier this summer.

Senate majority leader John Thune, a Republican, accused the Democrats of taking federal workers “hostage”.

His Democrat counterpart, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, said the Republicans’ funding package “does absolutely nothing to solve the biggest health care crisis in America”.

Trump threatens layoffs

President Donald Trump was defiant ahead of the votes, and warned he could make “irreversible” cuts “that are bad” for the Democrats if the shutdown went ahead.

He threatened to cut “vast numbers of people out” and “programmes that they (the Democrats) like”.

“We’ll be laying off a lot of people,” he told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

Tens of thousands of government employees have already been laid off this year, driven by the “DOGE” initiative spearheaded by Elon Musk upon Mr Trump’s return to the White House.

The last shutdown was in Mr Trump’s first term, from December 2018 to January 2019, when he demanded money for his US-Mexico border wall. At 35 days, it was the longest on record.

Mr Thune has expressed hope the latest shutdown will come to a much quicker conclusion, telling reporters: “We can reopen tomorrow – all it takes is a handful of Democrats to join Republicans to pass the clean, nonpartisan funding bill that’s in front of us.”

Before this week, the government had shut down 15 times since 1981. Most only last a few days.

The Senate will hold further votes on the Republican and Democrat stopgap funding bills on Wednesday. The former would fund the government through to 21 November.

What happens now?

Immigration enforcement, air-traffic control, military operations, social security and law enforcement are among the services that will not be brought to a halt.

However, should employees miss out on payslips as a result of a prolonged shutdown, they could be impacted by staffing shortages. For example, delays at airports.

Cultural institutions deemed non-essential, like national parks and museums, will be more directly impacted from the very beginning, with large cuts to the workforce.

The popular Smithsonian, for example, has said it only has enough funding to stay open for a week.

Broadway actors are preparing to exit the stage in a strike that would shutter more than 30 productions ahead of its peak season.

Actors’ Equity, a union representing 900 performers and stage managers in New York’s iconic theatre scene, said a walkout was on the cards due to a dispute over healthcare.

It’s negotiating with the Broadway League, a trade body representing theatre owners, producers, and operators. A previous three-year contract expired earlier this week.

The union wants the league to increase its contribution to its healthcare fund, which is expected to fall into a deficit before next May. The rate of contributions has remained unchanged for more than a decade.

Actors’ Equity president Brooke Shields said: “Asking our employers to care for our bodies, and to pay their fair share toward our health insurance is not only reasonable and necessary, it’s an investment they should want to make toward the long-term success of their businesses.”

She added: “There are no Broadway shows without healthy Broadway actors and stage managers. And there are no
healthy actors and stage managers without safe workplaces and stable health insurance.”

The Broadway League said it was “continuing good-faith negotiations” to “reach a fair agreement” that works for “shows, casts, crews, and the millions of people from around the world who come to experience Broadway.”

Read more from Sky News:
Boyzone announce reunion
JK Rowling hits out at Emma Watson

Should Broadway fall victim to strike action, it would follow in the footsteps of Hollywood – where writers walked out in 2023, curtailing a number of major productions – and the US video game industry in 2025, with concerns around the use of AI a key driver.

Actors’ Equity has not carried out a major strike since 1968, when a three-day dispute shut down 19 shows. An intervention from the New York City mayor helped both sides come to a deal.