Great article. I agree with you that Fraser J's clarification is that ICI "merely settles the issue of cash flow for that interim payment cycle". But wasn't it ever thus? Isn't it a mistake for any payee party to think that if the paying party has fallen foul of withholding notices, there is an end to any dispute over the amount they should be paid? Or put another way: have the perceived imperatives associated with withholding notices and/or pay-less notices really done for the paying/certifying party when he can always put matters right at the final account stage?