A ruling that West Suffolk MP and former health secretary Matt Hancock did not comply with a public sector equality duty when making appointments during the pandemic is "incredibly significant", according to a think tank boss.

The Runnymede Trust, an independent race equality think tank, won a High Court fight after complaining about Government appointments made during the pandemic.

Two judges ruled Mr Hancock did not comply with a public sector equality duty when appointing Conservative peer Baroness Dido Harding and Mike Coupe, a former colleague of Baroness Harding, to posts in 2020.

Mr Hancock's team said claims of 'apparent bias' had been quashed and thrown out by the court.

Judges concluded Mr Hancock had not complied with "the public sector equality duty" in relation to the decisions to appoint Baroness Harding as interim executive chairwoman of the National Institute for Health Protection (NIHP) in August 2020, and Mr Coupe as director of testing for NHS Test and Trace (NHSTT) in September 2020.

"The judgment handed down today by the High Court is incredibly significant to the British people," claimed Dr Halima Begum, the trust's chief executive.

"It shows the importance of the public sector equality duty and its role in protecting the people of this nation from the closed shop of Government appointments, not least in a time of national crisis where people from our minority communities were dying from Covid in hugely disproportionate numbers."

Campaign group the Good Law Project took legal action alongside the trust against Mr Hancock and Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

It complained about other appointments and argued the Government had not adopted an "open" process when making appointments to posts "critical to the pandemic response", but judges dismissed the claim.

Ministers disputed the claims against them.

A spokesman for Mr Hancock said: "Claims of 'apparent bias' and 'indirect discrimination' have been quashed and thrown out by the High Court.

"What the judgment does make clear is that 'the claim brought by Good Law Project fails in its entirety', therefore highlighting the fact this group continues to waste the court's time.

"The court judgment also states that 'the evidence provides no support... at all' for the allegation that Dido Harding secured senior positions on the basis of 'personal or political connections' in the Government."

"They accept these 'were urgent recruitment processes which needed to find highly specialised, experienced and available candidates within a short space of time'."