黑洞社区

It is understood that the dismissal of Cleveland Bridge鈥檚 appeal against two sections of last June鈥檚 High Court verdict means it will be unable to contest two other more serious aspects of that summer鈥檚 verdict. These were that it was in repudiatory breach of contract by walking off the site in 2004 and that a valuation of 拢32.66m for its work to February that year was subject to clawback.

The ruling is a heavy blow to Cleveland Bridge鈥檚 position in the pending damages trial, which is now cleared to proceed. The contractor鈥檚 liability for damages is capped at 拢6m, but it is likely to face a claim of up to 拢13m from Multiplex when revaluation of its work is considered.

Cleveland Bridge is one of a series of subcontractors suffering as a result of its involvement in Wembley, which will stage its first FA Cup final in two weeks. A 黑洞社区 investigation this week highlights the fate of nine subcontractors from the contract that have experienced difficulty. Five of these firms have fallen into administration.

The entire contract debate is to a great extent a sideshow
of little importance

Lord Justice May

Cleveland Bridge was given leave in January to appeal against the verdicts on valuations and the rigidity of its original contract. The appeal centred on three points: the effect of variations in the subcontract, the question of valuations of those variations and the meaning and effect of certain clauses.

Lord Justice May said the disputed subcontract 鈥渕ust have been regarded as workable鈥� when it was signed but conceded that 鈥渢he entire contract debate is to a great extent a sideshow of little or no importance.鈥�