The contract involved the construction of an outlet tunnel by a specified method. The Engineer under an ICE form had not accepted that there was a specified method statement and therefore the appropriate instructions under Clause 13 - orders under Clause 51 - had not been given. There had been a long delay following which the tunnel was constructed by the Contractor by a different method to that specified. The question to be answered was whether the contractor was entitled to a variation order under Clause 51(1) if the arbitrator comes to the conclusion that it was impossible to follow the method statement incorporated in the contract and that changes in the specified sequence, method or timing of the works were necessary for the completion of the works. It was held that there was a specified sequence or method of construction and the contractor was entitled to a variation order with the consequent entitlement to payment of the value of such variation as is provided in Clause 51(2) and Clause 52.