CONTRACTORS in the Wembley Stadium fiasco accused each other of dirty tricks as their multi-million pound battle finally reached the High Court yesterday.

Darlington construction group Cleveland Bridge is being sued by Multiplex for damages. In return, Cleveland Bridge is counter suing Multiplex for money it claims it is owed by the Australian company.

The judge, in the Technology and Construction Court in London, is being asked to rule on a clash in which each side accuses the other of "repudiatory" breach of contract - a breach in which the aggrieved party may treat the contract as terminated and sue for damages.

Multiplex, which blames its former sub-contractor at least in part for the delays that have bedevilled development of the £757m, 90,000-seat national stadium, is seeking up to £45m.

Cleveland, which built the stadium's iconic steel arch but walked off the site in August 2004 citing breach of contract, is counter-claiming £22.6m.

At the centre of the lawsuit is a 2004 agreement in which the two sides attempted to resolve a series of disputes concerning cost overruns by re-evaluating Cleveland's work.

Roger Stewart, for Multiplex, said Cleveland's 2002 contract for the stadium's steelwork was worth £60m.

Following complaints from both sides over how work was proceeding, in February 2004 a verbal agreement was reached which valued Cleveland's work up to that date at £32.66m.

Cleveland claimed this agreement was final and binding. Multiplex denied this, insisting that the agreement was a means by which it could make an interim payment to assist Cleveland with its cashflow problems.

Mr Stewart said the fact was that, by December 2003, Cleveland was "in a financially weak position and not prepared to abide by the terms of the contract".

In contrast, Multiplex was prepared to "cashflow" its sub-contractor, "despite the fact that its progress on site was appalling".

Mr Stewart contested Cleveland's assertion that Multiplex conspired to get rid of it by driving it into bankruptcy.

He said Cleveland had mounted an aggressive public relations strategy, called operation Trafalgar, to promote its interest in the case.

He claimed Press releases sent out by Cleveland Bridge's PR representative were biased.

And he described one as: "About as neutral as the dodgy dossier was in relation to the existence of weapons of mass destruction."

However, Hugh Tomlinson, for Cleveland Bridge, said Project Trafalgar was never implemented.

And he accused Multiplex of launching a plan - code-named Armageddon Day - designed to force Cleveland Bridge out of business. He pointed to an e-mail sent by Matt Stagg, from Mutliplex, which said Cleveland Bridge should be "...fixed and f**k them later".

Multiplex argued the Armageddon scheme was a contingency plan in case Cleveland Bridge went out of business.

The case continues.

The road to court - Page 3