黑洞社区

惭耻濒迟颈辫濒别虫鈥檚 project manager for Wembley, on his way to the High Court to give evidence on the second day of Multiplex vs Cleveland Bridge." src="https://d2vhdk00tg424t.cloudfront.net/MediaLibrary/s3/ubm-library/web/p/p/l/17news9a.jpg" imagecode="111560" />

Trial of strength: Ashley Muldoon, 惭耻濒迟颈辫濒别虫鈥檚 project manager for Wembley, on his way to the High Court to give evidence on the second day of Multiplex vs Cleveland Bridge.

Multiplex project manager Ashley Muldoon this week slammed Wembley steel subcontractor Cleveland Bridge as "incompetent, unmotivated and devious" as the long-awaited battle between the two firms got under way in the High Court in London.

Muldoon, the first witness to be called, made the comment in his witness statement, adding: "That is a summary of my involvement with CBUK [Cleveland Bridge]." However, he denied that his perception of the Darlington firm had led him to dismiss claims, made as early as 2003, that "late and incomplete designs" provided by Mott Stadium Consortium were leading to

delays, entitling the firm to an extension of time and appropriate compensation.

Muldoon admitted that design delays and changes had caused delays, saying: "There were general design problems, including those with Mott Stadium Consortium."

Muldoon also acknowledged in this respect that Multiplex might launch a professional negligence claim against Mott MacDonald. He said that Multiplex had begun considering this possibility "quite seriously" as early as January 2004.

Muldoon insisted, however, that Cleveland Bridge had a significant responsibility for delays on the steel programme and revealed that Multiplex staff had visited the site of Cleveland Bridge's plant in County Durham to investigate the level of fabrication. He said: "We expected them to work to a programme. They didn't work to a programme, let alone an accelerated one."

The case is expected to last four weeks and is worth about 拢50m.

The first exchanges between the firms' lawyers centred on why Cleveland Bridge, the original steel subcontractor, had left the site in August 2004. Cleveland Bridge claimed it was forced to quit after a repudiatory breach of contract by Multiplex. The subcontractor added that the subcontractor had been removed as part of an "Armageddon Plan" to cause the firm to "fall over" financially. It claimed that as part of this plan the Australian contractor had reneged on an agreed price for parts of Cleveland Bridge's work.

Hundreds of documents for the case arrive at the Technology and Construction Court

First exchanges centred on why Cleveland Bridge had quit

Multiplex denies these claims and countered that Cleveland Bridge had its own secret plan, "Project Trafalgar", to quit the project on the pretence that Multiplex had breached its contract, when the real reason was that it was in financial difficulty.

In a heated exchange on Tuesday, the opening day of the case, Roger Stewart, representing Multiplex, said some of the allegations made by Cleveland Bridge lacked credibility. He said they bore comparison with the "dodgy dossier" the government had produced to substantiate its claim that Iraq was a military threat.

He said Multiplex had "always been willing to abide by the terms of the subcontract" and that Cleveland Bridge had walked off the site after attempting to "use its financial weakness to pressure Multiplex into revising its contract".

Multiplex denied that Cleveland Bridge was entitled to receive payment of 拢32.66m for its work until 15 February 2004, a figure the subcontractor claims was agreed between the parties at that time. Multiplex said the figure was not final and binding and was agreed "only for cash flow". To back its claim that Cleveland Bridge did have a secret "Project Trafalgar" strategy Multiplex cited notes allegedly made by Matt Stagg, its construction managing director, at a meeting with Multiplex chairman John Roberts, Sheikh Abdullah, head of CBUK's major shareholder the Al Rushaid Group, and Roddy Grant, former CBUK chief executive, on

27 January 2004. Multiplex claimed in court that Stagg had written in this note that Grant had said: "Either we do a deal now or go into adjudication forever" and in brackets Stagg had added "blackmail".

Multiplex also alleged Cleveland Bridge was implementing the public relations aspect of a Project Trafalgar campaign to undermine Multiplex.

Cleveland Bridge lawyer Hugh Tomlinson said Project Trafalgar had never been implemented and dismissed claims that Cleveland Bridge was mounting an unfair public relations campaign. He said Multiplex was running its own public relations campaign and referred the court to an article in the Australian press in which Multiplex's opening statements were quoted.

The case continues.