[2008] EWHC 2082 (TCC), 15 August 2008. Discusses whether a sub-contractor's claim for payment, with an item for delay and disruption, was nebulous or ill-defined and whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to deal with it. VGC Construction Ltd (V) was employed by Jackson Civil Engineering for construction services (J). The contract overran for 26 weeks. (V) decided to submit application for payment, including an amount for delay and disruption. (J) sent a certificate deducting sums he decided to reject. Dispute over payment resulted and the parties resorted to adjudication. The adjudicator decided that (J) had to pay (V) the full amount. (J) ignored the adjudication. (V) made an instant application. Judge had to decide if (V)'s claim was clear enough to avoid dispute. (J) supported that (V)'s claim had no basis and because it was a new claim, the adjudicator could not deal with it. Held: Application granted. The claim was not nebulous and ill-defined. Because of the agreement of the two parties to resolve the dispute through adjudication, the adjudicator had jurisdiction to deal with it.