000			01963cad a22002175a 4500
001			L145536
008			081020e20080815xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u145536
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aVGC Construction Ltd v Jackson Civil Engineering Ltd _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2008
520			_a[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.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aCARILLION CONSTRUCTION LTD V DEVONPORT ROYAL DOCKYARD LTD
650	2	4	_aAMEC CIVIL ENGINEERING LTD V SOS TRANSPORT
650	2	4	_aCRUDEN CONSTRUCTION LTD V NEW TOWNS COMMISSION
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2008/730.html lzView the case free of charge at www.bailli.org...
942			_n0
999			_c80859 _d80859