0121 707 0077

CICV Best Practice Guide – Practice Note 4: Variations and Compensation Events

CICV Best Practice Guide – Practice Note 4: Variations and Compensation Events

Introduction

This Practice Note highlights the risks associated with variations in construction contracts, including onerous clauses, conditional precedents, and the risks of performing work without formal instructions. It builds upon Practice Note 1 on Notices and reinforces the importance of the “no instruction, no work” principle.

A key challenge for both contractors and subcontractors is completing work on-site only to face disputes over payment. This PN outlines how to identify and mitigate contractual risks related to variations, ensuring proper documentation and adherence to contract terms.

  1. Understanding Variations and Instructions

One of the most common clauses in subcontracts requires that all variations must be formally confirmed in writing. In many cases, failure to obtain a written variation order may result in the subcontractor having no entitlement to additional time or money.

How Variations Typically Arise:

  • Site managers often issue verbal instructions on-site for additional work.
  • Subcontractors, keen to progress the project, proceed without formal written approval.
  • When the final account is settled, contractors dispute or reject the variation due to a lack of records or proper authorisation.
  1. Best Practices for Managing Variations

Step 1: Always Obtain Written Instructions

If a verbal instruction is given on-site:

  • Request a formal site instruction (SI) in writing from the site manager.
    Email the Contractor’s Quantity Surveyor (QS), seeking confirmation that it is a variation.
  • Provide a cost estimate and request written approval before proceeding.
  • If no written instruction is received, do not proceed unless the subcontract allows the subcontractor to issue a variation notice. If the contract requires written approval, failing to obtain it may mean the work will not be paid for.

Step 2: Clarify the Contractor’s Position

If the contractor refuses or delays issuing an instruction, this is a red flag and a potential dispute risk. In such cases:

  • Explain that the contract requires written approval to avoid future disputes.
  • If the contractor insists that work must start without a written instruction, escalate the issue immediately.
  • Document the request and refusal for future reference.
  1. Keeping Accurate Records for Variations – refer also to PN 2

Maintaining proper records ensures variation claims are substantiated. The following records should be maintained:

  • A log of all variation requests with request and response dates.
  • A tracker for site instructions (SIs) received and whether they were in writing.
  • Photographic and video evidence of the work before, during, and after completion.
  • Labour, material, and time records for all additional work.
  • Regular correspondence with the contractor’s QS to ensure agreement on variation costs.

Tip: Agree on variations as they occur rather than leaving disputes until the final account stage.

  1. Handling Disputes Over Variations

If an instruction is disputed, or if the contractor refuses to issue a variation order:

  • Red flag the issue and document the request.
  • Request an official instruction allowing the work to proceed, pending valuation under the contract.
  • If no resolution is reached, consider alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options, such as the Conflict Avoidance Process (CAP), and the Low Value Adjudication Schemes.
  • Readers should note however the provisions in the JCT and SBBC Contracts in Schedule Part 2, which relates to Clause 5.3 in the Contract, which allows for a Variation Quotation to be submitted, and this will include the direct loss and expense to be incurred. This brings cost certainty to the employer, and the contractor, and goes a long way to eliminate payment disputes.
  1. Final Advice
  • Be proactive in managing variations — do not wait until the final account stage.
  • Always insist on written instructions — verbal agreements are not enforceable.
  • Keep detailed records — this will strengthen any claims for additional payment.
  • Communicate regularly with the contractor’s QS — avoid last-minute disputes.

By implementing these best practices, contractors and subcontractors can ensure clarity, fair compensation, and effective commercial management while minimising disputes.

CICV Best Practice Guide – Practice Note 4: Variations and Compensation Events

CICV Best Practice Guide Practice Note 3: Contract Amendments

Introduction

Contract amendments continue to be a major issue in the construction industry, often shifting risk disproportionately onto contractors and subcontractors. This Practice Note aims to highlight key contractual risks, explain why early contract review is essential, and provide guidance on managing amendments effectively.

For those new to the CICV Best Practice Guide (BPG), we strongly recommend reviewing its contractual and commercial management recommendations to reduce disputes and improve cash flow stability.

  1. Why Early Contract Review Matters

Many contractors fail to review contracts until it is too late. A common scenario is when a contractor only seeks a contract review the day before work starts—by then, it’s too late to renegotiate.

Review the contract at the tender stage to identify risks early.
If amendments are unreasonable, negotiate or price the risk accordingly.
If the contract terms are unacceptable and non-negotiable, be prepared to walk away.

Tip: Some industry bodies, such as the Finishes and Interiors Sector (FIS), offer Contract Review Services to help members identify high-risk clauses before signing.

  1. Common Risk Areas in Contract Amendments

Below are some of the most problematic contract amendments contractors should watch for:

Payment Terms

  • Amendments that delay payments beyond standard terms.
  • Retention clauses that extend payment periods or increase retention percentages.

 Notice Provisions

  • Onerous “time-bar” clauses requiring notification of delays within a very short timeframe (e.g., 2-7 days).
  • Strict notice requirements for submitting claims—refer to Practice Note 1 (PN1) on Notices for details.

Liquidated & Ascertained Damages (LADs)

  • LAD amounts that are disproportionate to the subcontract value.
  • No clear cap on liability, exposing subcontractors to excessive financial penalties.

Practical Completion

  • Does the subcontract have its own completion date, or is it tied to the main contract completion?
  • Are there unfair dependencies on other contractors’ work?

Variations and Design Responsibility

  • Unclear variation procedures—refer to Practice Note 4 (PN4) on Variations for best practices.
  • Expansion of Contractor Design Portions (CDP), shifting design liability to subcontractors.
  • No clarity on interface issues with other trades or contractors.

 Site Conditions and Title Issues

  • Clauses that pass responsibility for ground conditions or existing buildings to the contractor.
  • Unclear responsibilities for resolving title issues or dealing with external utility providers.

 Insurance Requirements

  • Contractual insurance provisions that do not align with your actual policies.
    Design liability clauses that may not be covered under your Professional Indemnity (PI) insurance.
  1. How to Manage Unfavourable Amendments

If you encounter onerous contract amendments, you have three options:

  1. Negotiate the terms with the client/contractor. Many amendments can be modified if raised early.
  2. Price the risk—factor potential liabilities into your tender pricing.
  3. Reject the contract and walk away if the risks are too high.

Tip: Industry bodies and trade organisations can provide support if you face unreasonable contract terms.

  1. Industry Response and Conflict Avoidance

The construction industry is increasingly concerned about excessive contract amendments. The Conflict Avoidance Coalition is actively working with industry experts to address unfair practices.

If you are seeing highly unfair or unworkable contract amendments, reach out to your trade body or the Conflict Avoidance Coalition for support.

For further insights, watch the Cash Flow and Contract Webinar on the CICV website.

Final Advice

Always review contracts before signing—never wait until work is about to start.
Understand your obligations and risks—identify clauses that could impact your cash flow.

Engage in early discussions—negotiate terms that protect your interests.
Seek expert advice—use industry contract review services if needed.

Taking a proactive approach to contract amendments will help mitigate risk, reduce disputes, and improve financial stability.

CICV Best Practice Guide – Practice Note 4: Variations and Compensation Events

CICV Best Practice Guide – Practice Note 1A:  Notices under NEC

This Practice Note is a supplement to Practice Note 1 ‘Notice’, aimed at highlighting key specific notice provisions under NEC3 & 4 Engineering and Construction Contracts (‘ECC’) and the NEC3 & 4 Engineering and Construction Subcontract (‘ECS’).

Specific Situations Requirement Notices
Contractors and subcontractors should be aware that generally, NEC contracts contain notice provisions in respect of the following situations:

  • Compensation Events.
  • Early Warning.
  • Defects.
  • Ambiguities and inconsistencies.
  • Illegal and impossible requirements.
  • Prevention.
  • Termination.

A brief overview these provision is as follows:

NEC3 & 4 (ECC)

Compensation Events

  • The Project Manager notifies the Contractor of compensation events arising from an instruction, the issue of a certificate, the changing of an earlier decision, or a correction of an assumption (cl.61.1).
  • The Contractor notifies the Project Manager of an event the Contractor believes to be a compensation event that has not been notified by the Project Manager (cl.61.3).
  • The Project Manager notifies the Contractor if the Project Manager decides that an event notified by the Contractor is not a compensation event (cl.61.4).
  • When requesting a quotation from the Contractor, the Project Manager notifies the Contractor if the Project Manager decides the Contractor failed to issue an early warning notice (cl.61.5).
  • If the effects of a compensation event cannot be reasonably ascertained with certainty, then, in an instruction to provide quotations, the Project Manager states any assumptions made by the Project Manager concerning the effects of a compensation event (cl.61.6).

Early Warning

  • The Project Manager and the Contractor notify each other as soon as they become aware of any matter which could increase the total of the Prices, delay Completion, delay meeting a Key Date, or impair the performance of the works in use (cl.16.1[NEC3] / cl.15.1[NEC4]).

Defects

  • Up to the defects date, the Supervisor and the Contractor notify each other of Defects as soon as they find them (cl.42.2[NEC3] / cl.43.2[NEC4]).

Ambiguities and Inconsistencies

  • The Project Manager or the Contractor notify each other as soon as they become aware of any ambiguity or inconsistency in or between the contract documents (cl.17.1).

Illegal and Impossible Requirements

  • The Contractor notifies the Project Manager if the Contractor believes the Works Information [NEC3] (or ‘Scope’ as per the NEC4) requires him to do anything illegal or impossible (cl.18.1[NEC3] / cl.17.2[NEC4]).

Prevention

  • If an event occurs, which neither Party could prevent, that stops the Contractor from completing the works by the date shown on the Accepted Programme, the Project Manager notifies (instructs) the Contractor on how the event is to be dealt with (cl.19.1).

Termination

  • If either Party wishes to terminate the Contractor’s obligation to Provide the Works, the Party wishing to terminate notifies the reason to the Project Manager and the other party (cl.90.1).

NEC3 & 4 (ECS)

Compensation Events

  • The Contractor notifies the Subcontractor of compensation events arising from an instruction, the issue of a certificate, the changing of an earlier decision, or a correction of an assumption (cl.61.1).
  • The Subcontractor notifies the Contractor of an event the Subcontractor believes to be a compensation event that has not been notified by the Contractor (cl.61.3).
  • The Contractor notifies the Subcontractor if the Contractor decides that an event notified by the Subcontractor is not a compensation event (cl.61.4).
  • When requesting a quotation from the Subcontractor, the Contractor notifies the Subcontractor if the Contractor decides the Subcontractor failed to issue an early warning notice (cl.61.5).
  • If the effects of a compensation event cannot be reasonably ascertained with certainty, then, in an instruction to provide quotations, the Contractor states any assumptions made by the Contractor concerning the effects of a compensation event (cl.61.6).

Early Warning

  • The Contractor and the Subcontractor notify each other as soon as they become aware of any matter which could increase the total of the Prices, delay Completion, delay meeting a Key Date, or impair the performance of the works in use (cl.16.1[NEC3] / cl.15.1[NEC4]).

Defects

  • Up to the defects date, the Subcontractor and the Contractor notify each other of Defects as soon as they find them (cl.42.2[NEC3] / cl.43.2[NEC4]).

Ambiguities and Inconsistencies

  • The Subcontractor or the Contractor notify each other as soon as they become aware of any ambiguity or inconsistency in or between the contract documents (cl.17.1)

Illegal and Impossible Requirements

  • The Subcontractor notifies the Contractor if the Subcontractor believes the Works Information [NEC3] (or ‘Scope’ as per the NEC4) requires him to do anything illegal or impossible (cl.18.1[NEC3] / cl.17.2[NEC4]).

Prevention

  • If an event occurs, which neither Party could prevent, that stops the Subcontractor from completing the works by the date shown on the Accepted Programme, the Contractor notifies (instructs) the Subcontractor on how the event is to be dealt with (cl.19.1).

Termination

  • If either Party wishes to terminate the Subcontractor’s obligation to Provide the Subcontract Works, the Party wishing to terminate notifies the reason to the other party (cl.90.1).

Final Advice

In the management and administration of NEC contracts, parties have the opportunity to act promptly and issue notices in accordance with a wide variety of contractual provisions. This not only aids in avoiding disputes by maintaining communication but also ensures certainty regarding the correct contractual position, which directly contributes to, or even governs, robust commercial management and financial outcomes.

Additional guidance notes

CICV Best Practice Guide – Practice Note 1: Notices

CICV Best Practice Guide – Practice Note 2: Records, Records, Records

Access the FIS Business and Legal Toolkit

FIS is committed to supporting members in developing their business and both directly and through our expert network offer helplines, guidance, template resources and toolkits to help you to run your business, set contracts up right and avoid and manage any disputes.

Inheritance Tax Changes

Inheritance Tax Changes

Through construction umbrella body Build UK, FIS, is supporting thecampaign by Family Business UK which is calling on the Chancellor to reconsider the changes to inheritance tax announced in the Autumn Budget, and we would encourage affected members to complete a short survey to help demonstrate the significant impact of the changes on businesses and the wider economy.

With an estimated 4.8 million family‐owned businesses in the UK, the changes to Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief will affect businesses across the country and starve the economy of investment. 81% of construction SMEs are family‐run and by working with Family Business UK we can demonstrate the significant economic contributions that these businesses make and how the changes will not provide the expected tax revenue. The survey should take no longer than 10 minutes to complete, and the deadline for responses is 2 March.

Sub-Contracting Simplified: New working group to develop a 500-word style contract. 

Sub-Contracting Simplified: New working group to develop a 500-word style contract. 

FIS is working with legal expert Sarah Fox (famous for her 500-word approach to contracts) to create a simplified subcontract for FIS members to use.

Sarah describes herself as a recovering lawyer and her work is driven by the principle that we are wasting time, money and energy on paperwork that few users can understand.  Complex contracts and unclear processes are costing our sector profit, deals and relationships.

This very much chimes with the challenges that were identified in the Reading Report.  Sarah has spent 10 years putting her idea into practice and drafting UK construction contracts starting with just 500 words. At the heart of her work is a simple idea – simplification works. When you streamline deals and clarify terms you’ll save avoid conflict, sign deals quicker and be more efficient.

To kick us off, FIS is looking at drawing together an intrepid group of contractors who regularly sub-contract packages of work (as distinct from using Labour Only Sub Contractors to deliver work they are contracted to do) to develop a universal contract that will be available for all members to use.  Our aim is to develop this contract in a 2-hour online workshop.

If you are interested in getting involved, please email: iainmcilwee@thefis.org by 21 February 2025.

If you have any live legal issues or want advice around standard form contracts, don’t forget the FIS Legal and Contractual Toolkit is available here and has a raft of tools to support the FIS Community.

Notified Sums: More time to pay less?

Notified Sums: More time to pay less?

In the matter of Placefirst Construction Limited -v- CAR Construction (North East) Limited (2025) EWHC 100 (TCC), Hill Dickinson successfully acted for Placefirst Construction Limited (“PCL”) in its claim for declaratory relief and the consequential nullification of an adjudicator’s decision requiring PCL to pay a notified sum. 

What is a Notified Sum?

Given the recent finding that technical payment (often referred to informally as “smash and grab”) adjudications accounted for around 63% of all claims referred to adjudication in recent years (2024 Construction Adjudication in the United Kingdon: Tracing trends and guiding reform (Kings College London, the Adjudication Society)), those in the industry will be all too familiar with the smash and grab concept and what constitutes a “notified sum”

This notified sum regime has been the subject of countless adjudications and subsequent litigation in the TCC and beyond. 

The facts in PCL vs CAR

The key facts of the case are as follows:

  • PCL employed CAR to carry out certain works pursuant to an amended JCT design and build 2016 form of subcontract (“the Contract”).
  • As per the terms of the Contract, CAR was required to submit an interim application for payment (“AFP”) no later than the 25th of each month.
  • PCL was required to issue a payment notice not later than five days after the “due date” (as defined by the Contract), with the amount as specified in such payment notice to be paid on or before the “final date for payment” (as defined by the Contract).
  • PCL was also entitled to issue a pay less notice no later than two days before the final date for payment.
  • On 24 July 2024, CAR submitted an AFP by email for works valued up to 31 July 2024.
  • On 31 July 2024, PCL sent an email enclosing a “Payless Notice” and a separate excel document titled “Valuation 30”, contending that no payment was owed to CAR.
  • It was averred by CAR that a payment notice had not been issued, and that the pay less notice had been issued by PCL in advance of the date when it could have properly been issued under the Act and the Contract. 
  • It was therefore CAR’s position the amount claimed in CAR’s AFP (i.e., the notified sum) was due and payable on the final date for payment.
  • PCL’s position was that it had issued both a valid and effective payment notice and pay less notice.
  • The dispute was referred to adjudication, with the adjudicator deciding in favour of CAR.
  • PCL subsequently issued part 8 proceedings seeking declarations that, amongst other things, the Valuation 30 document enclosed with the email on 31 July 2024 constituted a valid and effective payment notice and that the pay less notice issued on the same date was equally valid and effective. 
  • CAR thereafter issued its own proceedings and made an application for summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator’s decision.
  • At a joint directions hearing convened by the court, PCL were successful in arguing that, in line with established principles and the TCC Guide, its claim concerned short and self-contained issues which could be determined without the need for disclosure or witness evidence, and on a summary judgment application, such issues were those that it would be unconscionable for the court to ignore.
  • It was therefore determined by the court that it was appropriate for its part 8 claim to be disposed of at the same time as hearing CAR’s application for summary judgment.

The key issues

The key issues for the Court to determine were as follows:

Was the payless notice valid and effective?

  • Pursuant to s110B(4) of the Act, a payee’s application for payment will be regarded as the default payment notice in circumstances where a payment notice is not given by the payer, that is if (as in this case) the contract permits or requires this AFP to be made before the date on which this payment notice can be given.
  • In deciding whether the pay less notice issued by PCL was valid and effective, the Court was required to determine at what point an application for payment would be regarded as the payee’s notice in default, and therefore in respect of s111(5)(b) of the Act, when a pay less notice could be issued.
  • It was submitted by PCL the effect of s111(5)(b) and s110B(4) of the Act when read together was that, if an AFP was to take effect as a payee’s notice in default, such application would take effect as the default payment notice on the date when it was issued (meaning that effectively the date of a default payment notice was contingent on whether or not a payer notice was issued). 
  • The contrary position advanced by CAR was that, as s110B(2) permitted a payee (default) notice to be given at any time “after” the date on which the payment notice was required to be given, the AFP would not be “deemed” the default payment notice until after this date, meaning the pay less notice was invalid, as it was issued before this point in time.

Was the Valuation 30 document issued with the payless notice sufficient to constitute a valid payment notice?

  • In determining this point, the Court was required to consider, as contended by PCL, whether the Valuation 30 excel document attached to PCL’s email on 31 July 2024 was intended as a separate document (i.e., not merely a document supporting the pay less notice attached), and if so, whether in substance, the Valuation 30 document in its entirety, or any of the worksheets within, which included a “payment certificate”, comprised the payment notice, and that such payment notice could be served simultaneously with a pay less notice and under the cover of the same communication.
  • CAR raised various arguments in support of its contention that Valuation 30 did not constitute a valid payment notice, with its position in essence that this document was purely subsidiary (and its purpose being to provide the supporting detail only) to the pay less notice which it alleged had been issued prematurely, rendering it invalid.

The decision

Insofar as whether PCL had issued a valid and effective pay less notice, the court found that there was nothing in the Act which provided that an AFP is deemed or otherwise treated as a payee notice in default only after the period for the payor to give a payment notice had elapsed. Instead, where no valid payment notice is served, any such AFP is to be regarded as a payee notice in default, and a pay less notice is required to be given not before the date of the payee notice in default (i.e. the AFP).

In practical terms therefore, the only requirement in respect of the timing of a pay less notice (where a payment notice has not – or is alleged to have not been served) is that the pay less notice is issued after the date of the AFP and not before. 

As to whether, in any event, PCL had, at the same time, issued a valid payment notice, the Court adopted a “substance over form” approach in ultimately concluding that it had done so, whilst agreeing with PCL that there was nothing to prevent it from serving both notices at the same time. It noted in particular that:

  • There was no requirement for Valuation 30 to refer to itself as a “payment notice”. In this case, Valuation 30 was described as a “sub-contractor payment certificate”;
  • There is no requirement that a payment notice has to state expressly that the sum stated was that which was considered due at the due date;
  • A payment notice can state a negative sum due and is not required to state a zero sum (notwithstanding this would not create an obligation on the payee to pay that negative sum).

With the Court determining that PCL had served both a valid payment notice and a pay less notice, it succeeded with its part 8 claim in all respects, meaning the adjudicator’s decision was void and unenforceable.

Commentary

If a payer has, on any objective analysis, sought to comply with its obligations to give the required notices in response to an AFP the Court will not take an “unduly legalistic interpretation of [the] requirements [of the Act] (Para 89 judgment)”. Essentially, the Court adopted a sensible approach in not penalising PCL for a perceived technicality. 

Given the draconian consequences which may follow in the absence of a paying party serving the required notices, the Court’s clarifications, and its adoption of a “substance over form” approach are both welcome. Our view is that the Court’s focus was very much on intent and clarity. 

The Court also noted, perhaps significantly, that a payment notice and a pay less notice is largely the same in terms of content and that both notices could be served at the same time (although serving both is not always necessary).

This case also serves as a useful reminder that, in certain circumstances and subject to certain conditions, including the court’s own availability, the Court will intervene and make determinations which prevent the enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision which is plainly wrong.

David Crone, Adam Kitchin and David Banks acted for PCL in these proceedings.

For further details on our property and construction law services, please contact us or a member of our property and construction law team.