[2007] CSOH 190, 30 November 2007. Considers the apportionment of responsibility for delays occurring in the completion of works and the entitlement to extension of time. Pursuant employers (C) employed defendant contractor (S) to build a hotel under an amended JCT contract. S failed to complete the works by the contractual completion date. Architects issued a certificate retrospectively in accordance with clause 25 of the contract revising the completion date and S was awarded a four week extension. C claimed for damages, contending S was not entitled to any extension because (1) if the instructions issued by the architect caused any delays, they were concurrent with delays arising from matters that were S's fault; and (2) S did not comply with clause 13.8 of the contract which specified the procedures S should follow where an architect's instruction was likely to delay completion. S counterclaimed for an extension of time of 11 weeks and for prolongation costs. "Held": it was necessary to differentiate between delays caused by the lateness of the instructions and those caused by their content. S was entitled to an extension time of nine weeks and prolongation costs for nine weeks.