[2007] EWHC 447 (TCC), 6 March 2007. Questions whether time was set at large under one of the sub-contracts for the Wembley Stadium project and considers the prevention principle. The claimant contractor (M) had entered into a contract with the defendant sub-contractor (H). Clause 4 of the sub-contract conditions stated that M could issue a request for a variation proposal and clause 11 concerned extending time for the completion of the works where written notice of any relevant event was given. Substantial delays occurred, M issued three revised programmes to H under clause 4, and a dispute arose regarding whether M had put time at large under the sub-contract. The adjudicator determined that time had been put at large because the three programmes had been issued under clause 4, and clause 11 did not contain any mechanism for extending time in respect of delay caused by a direction under clause 4. M sought declarations to the effect that time had not been set at large. "Held": M was entitled to declarations that the notices of variation under the sub-contract had not set time at large. M's acts of prevention did not set time at large if the contract provided for extension of time in respect of those events.