The defendant engaged the claimant to construct a sewer, involving excavation, laying pipes, backfilling and replacing the road surface. Work started, but with the acquiescence of the Board there was then a delay pending delivery to the contractor of a piece of heavy-duty trenching equipment, called a Parsons trenchliner. Once available, this machine was expected to enable the contract to be completed more expeditiously. In the event its advantage in that respect proved to be accompanied by the disadvantage that more backfill had to be imported. The claimant's claim for additional payment in relation to the imported backfill failed. The Court held that because the contract did not lay down the manner in which the claimant had to make the excavations, and it was therefore left to the claimant to decide on matters of technique, there was no reason that the additional cost should be borne by the defendant.
