Mott blames choice of CBUK for Wembley delays

Mott MacDonald has said Multiplex's decision to choose steelwork firm Cleveland Bridge was a key reason behind the delays at Wembley Stadium.

Mott is being sued by the Australian firm, now owned and called Brookfield after its Canadian parent, for £253m amid claims it made dozens of changes to the design, which meant it ended up more than a year late and millions of pounds over budget.

But in its near 600-page defence, Mott says CBUK - which is still in the middle of its own legal action with Multiplex - should never have appointed in the first place.

It said: "In effect, Multiplex seeks to make Mott liable for the consequences of CBUK's incompetence, its failure properly to resource and progress its works and, ultimately, its repudiation of contract."

The Darlington contractor walked off the job in August 2004 and Mott added: "CBUK's failures were a cause of delay and disruption to the project and increased costs. The actions of CBUK and its inability or unwillingness to perform its contractual obligations to Multiplex were not matters that were foreseeable."

Mott alleges that Multiplex was "extremely keen" to win the job, so much so that in September 2000, just two days after a bid with then joint venture partner Bovis had been turned down, it submitted a lone bid to Wembley National Stadium £70m below the previous rejected offer.

As a result, Mott claims Multiplex chose CBUK ahead of a more expensive proposal made by rival William Hare. CBUK's bid was £60m.

Mott alleges that once on the job, CBUK was "under-resourced" and that it failed "to properly manage and co-ordinate its steel deliveries and steel storage".

In its defence, Mott also counterclaims for £230,000, which it says Multiplex owes it in unpaid invoices.

A two-day case management hearing - when the two sides map out the times and dates for the trial ahead - is due to be held at the High Court at the end of this month.

A spokesperson for Cleveland Bridge UK said: "Based on what we have heard today, it is extraordinary how the claims by Mott McDonald appear to be re-writing history. Certainly its pleadings bear no relation to reality. The quality, timetable and delivery of work by Cleveland Bridge on the Wembley site has never been an issue and the claims appear to be a smoke screen designed to disorientate the court and pass blame on to an innocent party who will not be in the court room to defend itself".