Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to the newest version of your browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of Construction News, please enable cookies in your browser.

Welcome to the Construction News site. As we have relaunched, you will have to sign in once now and agree for us to use cookies, so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Brookfield Multiplex settles £16m Pinnacle dispute

Brookfield Multiplex has settled a multi-million Pound legal dispute over the £800m Pinnacle skyscraper project in the City of London.

In a statement, the main contractor said: “Brookfield Multiplex can confirm that an agreement has been reached on outstanding payments relating to construction work already carried out and as part of the settlement Brookfield Multiplex will now work with the investors to refine the scheme.”

Insolvency proceedings had been mooted if the payment row was not resolved.

Late last year the company began proceedings in the Technology and Construction Court, to reclaim four interim payments for work undertaken on the City’s tallest skyscraper project.

Brookfield claimed £14.95m in unpaid fees from the Pinnacle No 1 Ltd, which owns the scheme.

A parallel claim for £15.58m was also made against parent companies The Pinnacle Holdings Ltd and The Pinnacle Ltd.

The owners were ordered by the court to pay Brookfield, after they failed to file a defence against the claim.

The Pinnacle scheme has been on hold for several months due to funding issues. CN revealed in January that Brookfield had told workers to down tools following concerns over financing, on the orders of client Arab Investments.

Arab Investments is developing the scheme on behalf of majority Middle Eastern owners the Saudi Economic and Development Holding Company.

The Pinnacle project has been specifically designed for an investment bank tenant, complete with a trading floor, but work on securing a pre-let for the skyscraper had already been halted as the owner sought to renew its debt facilities.

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.