THE multi-million pound feud between engineering company Cleveland Bridge and its former bosses on the Wembley Stadium project intensified last night.
The North-East company went to the Court of Technology and Construction, part of the High Court, to claim it is owed £21m by Australian group Multiplex.
Bosses made their move after Multiplex launched legal action on Thursday saying it was, in fact, entitled to between £25m and £30m from the Darlington company.
It also emerged last night that Cleveland Bridge is celebrating a third financial success after a ruling from an independent adjudicator.
Last month, Multiplex, the main contractor on Wembley, was ordered to pay £423,000 and just over £1.5m to Cleveland Bridge.
The first two announcements came after Multiplex launched legal proceedings saying it was owed money by Cleveland Bridge.
However, adjudications found the opposite -that Cleveland Bridge was entitled to money from Multiplex.
The initial two payments have been made, and last night it emerged that a further £500,000 was to be paid to the North-East company.
The third payout will bring the total awarded to Cleveland Bridge so far to £2,480,980.
Cleveland Bridge is also thought to be considering applying for further adjudications in the near future.
A spokesman said last night: "Cleveland Bridge expects, as prescribed by the adjudicator, for the £500,000 awarded to be paid during the course of the week commencing November 8. A further adjudication result is expected next week."
Multiplex said last night it was happy with the adjudication process and the outcomes.
Of the High Court case, a spokesman said: "Multiplex has issued its claim, and the reason for doing this is to get things sorted out soon. It has been dragging on for so long now."
Cleveland Bridge, which secured a £60m contract to build the London venue's showpiece arch and roof, stopped work in August as the dispute escalated. As a result, 95 jobs in Darlington had to be cut.
More than 200 steelworkers at Wembley also lost their jobs, but were reinstated after lengthy discussions involving their unions.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article