The Enquirer reported yesterday how the firm was fighting for its life in the face of a cash-flow crisis.

It has now been confirmed that Ernst & Young have been appointed administrators of Oldham based DCT Holdings Limited which had three trading businesses – DCT Holdings, DCT Plant Limited and DCT Civil Engineering.

Thirteen employees have been kept on to assist the administrators.

The failure of the £37m turnover business is being blamed on legal costs following a long-running arbitration hearing with Liverpool City Council.

Tom Jack, Joint Administrator, said: “DCT Group was a long established engineering business that has been impacted by the outcome of a legal dispute.

“Despite this being settled in the Group’s favour, the Group is now required to pay substantial legal costs which have been incurred by the other party over a number of years.

“As a result the Group has insufficient cash flow to fund continued trading and the Directors of the Group have concluded that the Group is insolvent.

“We are therefore working with the directors and retained employees to try to preserve and sell contracts and maximise asset values for the Group’s creditors.”

The Joint Administrators are seeking offers in respect of the Group’s contracts and freehold property and equipment owned by the Group.

A Liverpool City Council spokesman said: “We are naturally saddened that DCT has gone into administration and are disappointed that they did not approach us to discuss the situation prior to taking such a drastic step.

“It is regrettable that DCT chose to pursue the city council through arbitration instead of settling the account.

“However, having chosen to do so, it is only fair that they should reimburse the council’s  legal costs (which they appear to accept they are liable for) rather than leaving council taxpayers to pick up the bill.

“As a public authority, we take very seriously the requirements of confidentiality imposed on arbitration proceedings.

“We see that DCT have made a public statement in relation to proceedings that are not yet concluded.  We are unable to comment on the detail of these proceedings but note that DCT recognises that the outcome of its claim is such that it will inevitably have to bear the costs incurred by Liverpool City Council in defending that claim.

“It would appear from their statements that they will not even seek to suggest otherwise.  It follows from this that we certainly do not accept any suggestion that DCT were successful in the arbitration.  Beyond this, we are unable to comment at this stage”.