A defence contractor has been accused of contempt of court after admitting it faked evidence in a legal row over the Type 45 destroyers built in Glasgow.

Marine engineering firm Ticon will go to Scotland's highest court today to try to fix a hearing over the rare civil action.

If found in contempt it could see Ticon's managing director jailed for up to two years.

The company denies contempt of court but acknowledges "fabricating" a vital court document.

The admission comes after a bitter legal dispute with former business partner Deck-Rite, which worked with Ticon to insulate the Type 45s when they were being built.

It thrusts the Stepps-based business and its managing director, Tom Stark, into the centre of a high-profile case. Ticon and Mr Stark are cited in a minute of contempt lodged by Deck-Rite's lawyers at the Court Of Session, Edinburgh.

Deck-Rite hope the judge will order a rare civil proof of contempt, most likely to take place in the autumn.

Their contempt of court action is civil. But any punishments for Ticon or Mr Stark would be criminal.

Contempt of court at the Court Of Session, if proved or admitted, would be punishable by up to two years in jail, a fine or both.

Deck-Rite, based in Bishopbriggs, is already suing Ticon in a dispute over some £750,000 it believes it is due for work it carried out insulating the decks of the six Type 45s.

Ticon disputes it owes the money. As part of its defence, it claimed the contract with Deck-Rite came after it invited two other companies to tender.

The company produced a tender letter from one of those firms. But Ticon has since admitted this letter, crucial to the commercial dispute and supposedly nearly a decade old, was fake.

Lawyers for Deck-Rite accused Ticon and Mr Stark of "a premeditated and sophisticated scheme to procure and present a fabricated document with the intention of deceiving the court and thereby interfering with the proper administration of justice and subverting a fair trial".

They added: "It is criminal at common law. The false evidence given by Mr Stark on oath at the open commission amounts separately to an offence."

In formal documents lodged with the court, lawyers on behalf of Ticon said: "The purported tender dated 14 April 2004 was a fabrication."

But they said the fake was the result of a "gross misconception" on the part of Mr Stark, who said he was merely trying to recreate a document he insists once existed.