Free from fear or favour
No tracking. No cookies

Michelle Mone’s Lawyer Distances Himself from Baroness’ Claim She Lied to the Press on his Advice

A lawyer acting for the lawyer of Baroness Michelle Mone told Byline Times it would be defamatory to suggest David McKie ‘knowingly represented a false position’

Baroness Michelle Mone. Photo: Stefan Rousseau/PA/Alamy

Newsletter offer

Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.

The drama surrounding the truth – and counter-truths – of Baroness Michelle Mone’s dealings with PPE Medpro, and the lucrative government contracts seemingly derived from her back-stage lobbying, took a further turn this week when her lawyer appeared to distance himself from her public comments.

Earlier this month, the BBC reported that Mone had made an “error” by lying to the press and not initially telling the media of her involvement with the company. Crucially, it reported that “she initially denied involvement due to legal advice”.

When Byline Times asked her lawyer, David McKie, if he was aware Mone was lying about not being connected to PPE Medpro, Mr McKie instructed his own solicitor.

The lawyer of the baroness’ lawyer said he has “never advanced a factual position on behalf of a client without being (i) aware of the basis therefor and (ii) instructed to do so”. 

PPE Medpro, the company at the heart of this scandal, is being sued by the Government for £122 million plus costs for “breach of contract and unjust enrichment”. It had supplied millions of pounds worth of personal protective equipment – much of which was found to be defective – to the Government during the pandemic. 

Mone has said the Government knew about her involvement with the company. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak stated he is taking the issue “incredibly seriously”.

Much of the scandal has focused on Mone’s denial to the press that she was linked to PPE Medpro.

Last May, Mr McKie was asked by Byline Times whether Mone was connected to PPE Medpro. He said to report as such would be defamatory.  


Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.

We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.

When this newspaper challenged this, Mr McKie replied: “Your email now appears to suggest that the ‘legal threats’ are without substance and that our correspondence is therefore without merit or justification. That is not only defamatory of our client, but of us and indeed of her previous agents. If you report that explicitly or by implication, it will be actionable.”

This month, in the wake of Mone’s admission that she had lied all along, Mr McKie appeared to contradict her claim that she did so on his advice.

His lawyers, Livingstone Brown, told Byline Times: “Mr McKie was engaged to act on behalf of Baroness Mone… It is in the nature of the work that solicitors do to represent factual propositions on behalf of clients. Solicitors are bound by their professional rules to act with honesty and integrity; at all times, he has done so.

“Any publication which asserted or implied that our client had knowingly represented a false position to you or any other third party would be defamatory, and hence actionable. It would also be materially inaccurate, and hence infringe clause 1 of the Editors’ Code.”

Written by

This article was filed under
, , ,