• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Essential law: Variations - Part one

In the first of a series on the basics of construction law, James Worthington and Vanessa Jones begin with variations, considering here the scope of the right to instruct variations.

The variations regime is fundamental to both parties to a construction contract. It gives the employer the flexibility to change the works, and determines the extent to which the contractor will be allowed additional time and money for such changes.

This article will look at some of the issues regarding the extent of the employer’s right to instruct a variation and the contractor’s right to claim that an employer’s instruction is a variation.

What is a variation?

Most construction contracts will include a definition of what is a “variation” under that contract. In general terms, a variation is an instruction by the employer to alter the works to be performed or an instruction to vary their timing, method or sequence.

However, not all instructions will be treated as variations. In particular:

  • Where the instructed work is “indispensably necessary” to complete the contract works, the court will generally infer that it is included in the contracted works, regardless of the fact that it is not expressly identified in the specification. 
  • Where the contractor has agreed to design and build a facility to meet certain performance specifications, changes to the design required to meet those performance specifications will generally not be a variation.
  • Where the contractor has taken on a risk under the contract (such as ground conditions), any delay or additional cost that arises from that risk will be the responsibility of the contractor, and will generally not be a variation even though the methodology required to complete the works may have changed.
  • Where the contract gives the architect the power to determine the method by which the works are executed, it is generally not a variation if the architect chooses a specific methodology, even if that choice was unreasonable.

Can an employer instruct any variation?

There are certain limits on the employer’s right to instruct a variation that will generally be implied into a construction contract, such that the following are not permitted (unless expressly permitted by the contract or agreed by the contractor):

  • Instructions that fundamentally change the nature of the contract, or were clearly not contemplated by the original contract. The guiding principle is that after such variation the works should still be capable of being identified as the works originally defined in the contract.
  • Instructions that omit works for the purpose of awarding those works to another contractor. If an employer intends to omit work, it should be for the purpose of omitting that work entirely from the project. The courts have held that a contractor has both an obligation to do the works, and a corresponding right to be able to do those works.
  • Instructions after practical completion has already occurred. 

Does the contractor have the right to carry out additional work? 

A contract may give the employer the right to instruct additional work, but that does not mean there will be an implied term that if additional work is required, the employer must instruct the contractor to carry it out.

Can the contractor object to a variation?

This would depend on the terms of the relevant variation clause. However, the standard forms generally contain a limited right for the contractor to object. For example, JCT provides that a contractor may make a reasonable objection to an instruction that relates to the imposition by the employer of any restrictions regarding access, limitations of working space or working hours or the execution of work in a specific order.

Are there circumstances where an employer is obliged to instruct a variation?

Certain standard form contracts (such as the old ICE conditions) place a positive obligation on the engineer to instruct a variation if this was necessary for completion. However, whether such an obligation may be implied is more complex. There is a tension between the contractor’s obligation to build what is described in the contract even if that is impossible, and the implied duty on the employer to co-operate.

What if there is no variation clause?

All standard form construction contracts contain variation clauses, but what if the parties have contracted on, say, a simple agreement of price and scope of work without a variations clause?

First, there is no implied right for an employer to instruct a variation under a construction contract. Therefore if there is no express contractual right for an employer to instruct variations, the contractor can refuse to carry out such variations without consequence.

Second, if the contractor agrees to carry out such variation, this varied work may be construed as a new contract such that the varied work is valued on a different basis than under the original contract and not based on the rates and prices in that original contract.

This article was written by James Worthington and Vanessa Jones at Charles Russell Speechlys and was first published in ‘Building’ magazine on 5 March 2020.

Our thinking

  • IBA Annual Conference 2025

    Simon Ridpath

    Events

  • Understanding the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025: Implications for UK Businesses

    Janine Regan

    Insights

  • Family Investment Companies: Rising Popularity Amid Business Property Relief Changes

    Mary Perham

    Insights

  • Government launches consultation on “switching on” provisions regulating service charges and estate management charges in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024

    Laura Bushaway

    Insights

  • Oliver Park writes for Estates Gazette on a recent rebuke to the FTT over its management of a remediation order case

    Oliver Park

    In the Press

  • Maddie Dunn writes for Farmers Guardian on last month’s Spending Review and the Government’s attitude to farming

    Maddie Dunn

    In the Press

  • Thomas Moran and Ruth Morris write for Prime Resi on the Prime London market and the wider impact of rental reform

    Thomas Moran

    In the Press

  • ICC Arbitration Statistics 2024 – UAE Breaks into Top 5 Seats

    Dalal Alhouti

    Quick Reads

  • Unblocking Delays in High-Rise Home Construction: A New Era for Building Safety Regulation

    Tegan Johnson

    Quick Reads

  • The future of the planning committee – evolution not revolution?

    Sadie Pitman

    Quick Reads

  • Why Getty Images v Stability AI Judgment Will Not Answer Our Key Questions

    Nick White

    Insights

  • Georgina Muskett and Laura Bushaway write for Property Week on whether drone use can become trespass

    Georgina Muskett

    In the Press

  • How does extradition work?

    Ghassan El Daye

    Insights

  • Extradition in the United Arab Emirates (UAE)

    Ghassan El Daye

    Insights

  • Food Security is National Security: can regenerative agriculture help fortify the UK?

    Maddie Dunn

    Insights

  • Navigating restrictive covenants: Key considerations for developers

    Helena Cullwick

    Insights

  • Property Week quotes Michael O'Connor on the Court of Appeal rejecting Get Living's appeal against Triathlon over fire safety defects

    Michael O'Connor

    In the Press

  • FCA Finalised Guidance on PEPs: FG 25/3 – A recalibrated approach for domestic politically exposed persons

    Charlotte Hill

    Insights

  • UK tax considerations for US persons relocating to the UK

    Matthew Radcliffe

    Insights

  • Offshore trusts: Have reports of their demise been greatly exaggerated?

    Dominic Lawrance

    Insights

Back to top