What was supposed to be an engineering triumph has turned into a winner-takes-all showdown in court. Nigel Burton and David Roberts report.

IT is a David and Goliath battle between an Australian multinational with huge ambition and a plucky British contractor with a rich history of construction success.

At least that is the view Cleveland Bridge would like its supporters to believe.

Supporters of Multiplex, its former senior partner on the Wembley project, certainly think otherwise.

At stake in the High Court are millions of pounds and the good reputations of both companies.

Things were very different back in 2002 when Multiplex, the Australian conglomerate chosen to lead the £760m Wembley project, gave Cleveland the contract to build the stadium's iconic arch.

Cleveland's management said the deal would help ensure continued job security for the Darlington workforce.

The company - which was founded in 1877 - already had a string of world-famous designs to its name, including, somewhat ironically, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, in Australia.

The Wembley arch would be the jewel in the crown.

Council and union leaders hailed news of the company's continued success.

Councillor John Williams, leader of Darlington Borough Council, said: "This is absolutely brilliant for Darlington and for jobs in Darlington.

"The achievements of the Cleveland Bridge group can already be seen all around the world.

"Now the company is to play a major role in the reconstruction of the world's most famous football stadium."

Gerry Hunter, regional organiser with engineering union Amicus, said: "This is very good news for engineering in Darlington.

"Everyone is delighted that Cleveland Bridge has been awarded this contract."

But days after the 1,700-tonne arch was hoisted into its final resting place in 2004, Cleveland Bridge stunned the construction industry by announcing that it was walking away from the project.

The firm issued a statement saying it was handing over all site-related works to Dutch company Hollandia.

In public, neither party would say what had happened.

Cleveland managers maintained a dignified silence.

Multiplex must surely have come to regret its comment on the decision.

"These steps have been agreed between the parties to ensure the timely delivery of the stadium ahead of schedule," it said.

"Both companies remain totally committed to delivering the world's best stadium."

The uneasy silence ended in the worst possible way shortly after when Cleveland laid off all 250 of its workers who had been employed on the project.

The Darlington firm said: "Cleveland Bridge regrets to announce that it is unable to reach agreement with Multiplex on the transfer of Wembley site staff and workforce to Hollandia.

"Cleveland Bridge, therefore, has no alternative but to give notice of redundancy to its entire Wembley staff. "

Frantic behind-the-scenes negotiations eventually resulted in a stay of execution for the workforce, who stayed on to finish the job.

But the breakdown between Cleveland and Multiplex was complete.

Yesterday, it led to the High Court in London.

The stakes are incredibly high.

Multiplex is demanding £45m for alleged breach of contract, while Cleveland has launched a counterclaim for £22.6m.

The court case has become something of a public relations battle, with Multiplex complaining that Cleveland Bridge has launched an over-aggressive campaign.

In return, it has employed Webber Shandwick, the world's biggest PR firm, headed by David Yelland, a former Sun editor and Northern Echo journalist.

No wonder one Australian newspaper confidently predicted it would be the "sexiest" case heard at the court in years.

With a multinational cast consisting of an Australian developer, a North-East engineering firm now owned by a millionaire sheikh and, at its centre, the spiritual home of football, it certainly promises to be an interesting couple of weeks