Put the record in order
Bring together emails and documents from the project. Read events in date order, with a link back to each source.
Understand the evidence in a construction dispute.
VeriCase brings your project emails and documents together, so you can find what happened, check the evidence and prepare a claim or response.
Software for contractors, claims consultants and construction lawyers.
Opens an email to enquiries@veri-case.com. Please do not include confidential details of a live matter.
Three jobs, one place.
Find the evidence
Ask a question about the records. Check the answer against the emails and documents it refers to.
Prepare your case
Build a claim or respond to the other side’s arguments. Review proposed wording with the supporting evidence alongside it.
AI helps find and draft. Your team checks the evidence and approves the work.
Want to see more?
Explore a fictional construction dispute, from the first project email to a draft response. Open the example to inspect the documents and try the product illustrations.
Explore the worked exampleA detailed, optional walkthrough of the chronology, evidence and claim preparation.
In this fictional dispute, the parties disagree about when delay became apparent. Follow the correspondence to see how VeriCase helps a team examine the evidence.
Illustration: nine items of fictional correspondence and records are threaded, stripped of quoted history and, where they are a near-duplicate, an automatic reply or another project’s email, set aside. Six remain and take their places in date order, each with a citation to its source.Illustration: seven items of fictional correspondence are threaded, stripped of quoted history and, where they are a near-duplicate or another project’s email, set aside. Five remain and take their places in date order, each with a citation to its source.
- 03 March 2025, 09:14, Employer’s Agent to Contractor: ‘Please proceed with bracket type B. This is an instruction requiring a Change.’, EV-0131
- 12 March 2025, 16:42, Façade Sub-Contractor to Contractor: ‘Stainless brackets are ten weeks from order.’, EV-0138
- 13 March 2025, 07:55, Site Manager to Commercial Manager: ‘Can we get a firm date before we notify?’, EV-0139
- 21 March 2025, Site diary, page 41 (OCR): ‘Type A brackets returned to store.’, EV-0144
- 26 March 2025, 11:20, Supplier via Façade Sub-Contractor to Contractor: ‘Confirmed delivery: week commencing 19 May 2025.’, EV-0147
- 28 March 2025, 15:48, Contractor to Employer’s Agent: ‘Notice under clause 2.24.’, EV-0151
Set aside: 1 near-duplicate · 1 automatic reply · 1 other project
Set aside: 1 near-duplicate · 1 other project
Drag the Lens
Notice was given on 28 March 2025 : sixteen days after the lead-time email and two days after delivery was confirmed .
6 entries · 4 parties · 3 set aside · 6 of 6 linked to source
5 entries · 4 parties · 2 set aside · 5 of 5 linked to source
PROJECT TIME · 2024 / 2025
DOCKET NO. 001-A · EW-LONChapter I: The clock
Most disputes come down to what the record shows, and when.
Many construction disputes run to fixed timetables. Time is the commodity everyone is chasing. When a notice falls due or a referral arrives, the case is only as strong as the record you can find, read and cite in the time allowed. It is often said that the three lessons of construction disputes are records, records and records. The periods below show why.
Where the record fails
You need to build a factual chronology from tens of thousands of emails. The record exists, but it sits across mailboxes, custodians and years, in a form no one can read in order. Finding the relevant correspondence takes time.
Where VeriCase comes in
VeriCase puts the correspondence in order and links each entry to its source, so your team can examine what happened and prepare its analysis.
⌜
⌝
⌞
⌟
The sample matter (fictional)
DOCKET: VC-2025-081 · REF: JCT-DB16
Example Contractor Ltd and Example Employer Ltd
A residential building let under the JCT Design and Build Contract 2016, with the Employer’s amendments. On 03 March 2025 the Employer’s Agent instructed a Change: stainless steel cladding brackets (type B) in place of aluminium brackets (type A) on Levels 3 to 6. The Contractor gave notice under clause 2.24 on 28 March 2025.1
The point in issueCondition Precedent
In this fictional contract, clause 2.24 has been amended to make notice a condition precedent to a later Completion Date under clause 2.25. The Employer contends that notice was not given forthwith. The date on which it became reasonably apparent that progress was being or was likely to be delayed is therefore decisive.
Every chapter below works from this matter. See note A.
⌜
⌝
⌞
⌟
FIGURE 2 · THE NOTICE RULER
35-DAY DISPUTE AXIS · MARCH TO APRIL 2025
When did delay become reasonably apparent?
March to April 2025
Whether notice was given forthwith is for the adjudicator. The ruler shows only what the record says, and when.
Fig. 2. Notice ruler for the sample matter. Dates only; this is not an analysis of delay. See note A.
| Period | Provision | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| 28 days | HGCRA 1996, s 108 | An adjudicator must reach a decision within 28 days of referral, extendable to 42 days with the referring party’s consent, or longer if both parties agree after referral.2 |
| Forthwith | JCT D&B 2016, cl 2.24 | The Contractor must give written notice forthwith when it becomes reasonably apparent that the progress of the Works is being or is likely to be delayed. Whether late notice bars a later Completion Date depends on the terms of the contract, including any amendments.1 |
| Eight weeks | NEC4, cl 61.3 | A compensation event notified more than eight weeks after the Contractor became aware that it had happened is barred, subject to the exceptions in the clause.3 |
| 28 days | FIDIC 2017, sub-cl 20.2.1 | Notice of a claim is required as soon as practicable, and no later than 28 days after the claiming party became aware, or should have become aware, of the event or circumstance.4 |
| Six and twelve years | Limitation Act 1980, ss 5 and 8 | Six years for an action founded on simple contract; twelve years for an action upon a specialty, which includes a contract made by deed (England and Wales).5 |
Schedule 1: Time limits that do not wait for the record
- Period
- 28 days
- Provision
- HGCRA 1996, s 108
- Summary
- An adjudicator must reach a decision within 28 days of referral, extendable to 42 days with the referring party’s consent, or longer if both parties agree after referral.2
- Period
- Forthwith
- Provision
- JCT D&B 2016, cl 2.24
- Summary
- The Contractor must give written notice forthwith when it becomes reasonably apparent that the progress of the Works is being or is likely to be delayed. Whether late notice bars a later Completion Date depends on the terms of the contract, including any amendments.1
- Period
- Eight weeks
- Provision
- NEC4, cl 61.3
- Summary
- A compensation event notified more than eight weeks after the Contractor became aware that it had happened is barred, subject to the exceptions in the clause.3
- Period
- 28 days
- Provision
- FIDIC 2017, sub-cl 20.2.1
- Summary
- Notice of a claim is required as soon as practicable, and no later than 28 days after the claiming party became aware, or should have become aware, of the event or circumstance.4
- Period
- Six and twelve years
- Provision
- Limitation Act 1980, ss 5 and 8
- Summary
- Six years for an action founded on simple contract; twelve years for an action upon a specialty, which includes a contract made by deed (England and Wales).5
Summaries for orientation only. The statute and the contract govern; this is not legal advice. See note C.
Chapter II: The Chronology Lens™
Many threads.One order of events.
Email is stored as threads and mailboxes. A tribunal reads a case as events. The Chronology Lens™ merges the correspondence in a matter into one time-ordered view across every party, and keeps each entry tied to the message it came from.
Where the record fails
The same message can sit in four mailboxes under three subject lines, and the account of what happened can be buried under quoted replies.
Where VeriCase comes in
Every email becomes its own record. Threads are rebuilt from their headers, quoted history is folded away and near-duplicates leave the review set.
Six mailboxes, January 2024 to April 2025. The four highlighted exhibits concern the instruction on 03 March, the lead time on 12 March, delivery confirmation on 26 March and notice on 28 March 2025. Choose an operation above to highlight its place in the record.
Illustration: the sample matter in the Chronology Lens workbench, with eight entries from four parties in date order, controls for view, date window, Smart Filter, excluded keywords and Create bundle, and a File Manager view of attachments by type with a Show Noise switch.
Case time
Project time ends.Case time begins.
Chapter III: The case room
Their points, numbered.Your replies, cited.
Upload the other side’s submission to interrogate their factual position. Rebuttal Mode divides it into numbered points, ranks the evidence that bears on each, and proposes reply points that cite the documents that support or contradict the position. A person accepts, edits or rejects each one, and every decision is recorded.
Where the record fails
Under time pressure, a team answers first the points it can evidence quickly, and the rest risk being answered thinly.
Where VeriCase comes in
Each point sits beside the evidence ranked for it, and each proposed reply arrives with its citations.
28 days from referral
- Day 0, 20 January 2026: referral.
- Day 14, 03 February 2026: Response, under the fictional directions.
- Day 21, 10 February 2026: Reply, under the fictional directions.
- Day 28, 17 February 2026: decision due.
- Days 29 to 42, to 03 March 2026: available only with the referring party’s consent, or longer if both parties agree.
Days 29 to 42 · Extension to 42 days with the referring party’s consent2
Or longer, if both parties agree after referral. The dates for the Response and the Reply are the fictional adjudicator’s directions, not periods fixed by the Act.
Day 14 of 28
Day 14 · 03 February 2026 · The Response arrives
Illustration: the Employer’s Response in the sample matter, paragraphs 4.12 and 4.13, set out as a Scott Schedule. Each paragraph sits beside a proposed reply and the evidence ranked for it. The reply to 4.13 is accepted, the reply to 4.12 is edited with the text before and after retained, and a suggested point for 4.12 is rejected because its evidence does not support it.
Day 21 of 28
Day 21 · 10 February 2026 · The Reply is served
Export: each point in the Response paired with its reply and the evidence cited. 2 points · 2 replies · 5 exhibits
Drafts are proposals for a qualified person to review. Responsibility for what is served stays with its author.
Day 28 of 28
Day 28 · 17 February 2026 · Decision due
The decision is the adjudicator’s.
We will not tell you how the sample matter ends. VeriCase does not decide disputes, and admissibility and weight are for the tribunal. What VeriCase does is help you put the record of what was known, and when, in front of the adjudicator, with each point cited to its source.
See Rebuttal Mode working on sample correspondence.
Opens an email to enquiries@veri-case.com. Please do not include confidential details of a live matter.
Chapter IV: Ask, cite, bundle
Ask a question.Read a cited answer.Bundle the sources.
Ask a question about the project record, such as “What does the correspondence say about delivery?” Review how VeriCase has understood the question, then read an analysis with links to the emails and documents behind its findings. Your team checks the sources and assesses what they establish.
Where the record fails
Someone asks what the record shows on a point. The answer can arrive days later as a summary without sources, and the checking starts again.
Where VeriCase comes in
The answer arrives with its sources attached. Follow any citation to the message itself, then bundle what was cited.
1. Ask
Choose a question. Before anything runs, the Query Plan sets out the mode, period, parties, topics and sources that VeriCase has understood, as chips you can change. You correct the question, not the answer.
2. Cite
The report gives numbered citations to the underlying emails and documents, the number of sources cited and of items analysed, and a validation badge. Select a citation to open its source.
3. Bundle
Create bundle adds every cited item to a bundle with its title, description, case or matter, court, reference, who prepared it and for whom, its date and notes. Download PDF keeps the report as it stands.
Illustration: a plain-English question about the sample matter, the Query Plan derived from it and the resulting Analysis Report with six numbered citations. Each citation opens its fictional source. Create bundle adds the six cited items to a bundle.
See Research, the Chronology Lens™ and Rebuttal Mode on sample correspondence.
Opens an email. Please do not include confidential details of a live matter.
Chapter V: Build the claim
Draft the claim with the evidence already cited.
Organise the claim into sections, draft the narrative and link each point to its supporting evidence. The project team, solicitors, counsel and experts work on the same evidence, and discuss it where it sits.
Where the record fails
The narrative is drafted in one place, the evidence is kept in another, and the argument about the evidence happens in a reply-all thread.
Where VeriCase comes in
Each citation opens its message, and each discussion is anchored to the document it concerns.
- Heads of Claim
- Organise the claim by head and sub-head, with evidence linked to the head it supports.
- Citations by message ID
- Each citation points to one message, not to a file name that may change.
- Evidence finder
- For the section you are drafting, VeriCase proposes material from the record. It proposes; the drafter decides what is cited.
- Word and PDF
- Export the narrative to Word or PDF with its citations intact.
- Discussion on the document
- @mention a colleague on a document and the discussion opens on that document, so the reasoning stays beside the evidence.
Illustration: the Heads of Claim for the sample matter, and the narrative for section 1.2 with each paragraph cited by exhibit reference.
Illustration: a discussion among the legal team, anchored to the Site Manager’s email of 13 March 2025.
Chapter VI: The record holds
The original stays original.
Raw email is held in write-once storage with a cryptographic hash for each message. Everything done to the evidence afterwards is recorded against it, and each person sees only what their role permits.
Where the record fails
A bundle assembled by hand at midnight is where exhibits can go missing, pages can be misnumbered and a citation can point to the wrong document.
Where VeriCase comes in
Bundles are numbered in sequence and carry a manifest listing each item.
Originals held unchanged
Each raw message is kept unchanged with its hash, so the working record can be compared with the message as received.
An audit trail for every message
Tags, notes, links and edits are logged with the user, the time and the values before and after.
Numbered bundles with a manifest
Items are numbered in bundle order, and the manifest lists each item’s message ID, cryptographic hash and source path.
Access by role
Team Leader, Senior Lawyer, Claims Consultant, QS, Project Manager, External Counsel and Client Viewer.
Sensitive fields restricted
BCC recipients and other sensitive fields are visible only to the roles permitted to see them.
AI and keys on the server
AI processing and API keys are held server-side, not in the browser.
Check it yourself
A hash is a fingerprint of a file’s exact contents. Change one character and the fingerprint changes. Try it on EV-0138.
This demonstration computes a SHA-256 hash in your browser. The text you type stays in your browser.
A matching hash shows that a file is unchanged since it was hashed. It does not show who wrote the file, or that what it says is true.
The manifest lists each item’s cryptographic hash as recorded on ingestion, so that anyone holding the original can check that it has not changed since.
Before disclosure, not instead of it.
VeriCase is the pre-litigation workspace. It prepares the evidence, chronology, claim and rebuttal material that your solicitors take forward, and it does not replace the disclosure or review platform they already use. It is deliberately lean: evidence, chronology, claims and rebuttal, and nothing that does not serve them.
The project record:
mailboxes, archives, site diaries, drawings and reports
VeriCase:
evidence, chronology, claims and rebuttal
The pack:
chronology, cited analysis, bundle and manifest
Outside VeriCase:
your advisers’ disclosure platform, and the tribunal
Notes
Each note marker on this page links here, and each note links back to where it was cited.
Note 1.
JCT Design and Build Contract 2016, clauses 2.24 to 2.26 (summary).
If and whenever it becomes reasonably apparent that the progress of the Works is being or is likely to be delayed, the Contractor is to give written notice forthwith of the material circumstances, including the cause or causes of the delay, and to identify in the notice any event that in its opinion is a Relevant Event. It is also to give particulars of the expected effects, including an estimate of any expected delay in the completion of the Works beyond the Completion Date, and to keep them up to date (clause 2.24). If, on receiving the notice and particulars, the Employer considers that a Relevant Event has caused or is likely to cause delay to completion beyond the Completion Date, the Employer is to fix such later Completion Date as it then estimates to be fair and reasonable (clause 2.25). Relevant Events are listed in clause 2.26 and include Changes. The amendment that makes notice a condition precedent is part of the fictional sample matter; whether a real contract has that effect depends on its terms.
Back to textNote 2.
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, section 108(2)(c) and (d).
The contract must require the adjudicator to reach a decision within 28 days of referral, or such longer period as the parties agree after referral, and must allow the adjudicator to extend the period by up to 14 days with the consent of the referring party.
Back to textNote 3.
NEC4 Engineering and Construction Contract, clause 61.3 (summary).
A compensation event that the Contractor notifies more than eight weeks after becoming aware that it has happened is barred, subject to the exceptions stated in the clause. Refer to the clause, and to any amendments, in the contract concerned.
Back to textNote 4.
FIDIC Conditions of Contract, 2017 editions, sub-clause 20.2.1 (summary).
The claiming party gives notice as soon as practicable, and no later than 28 days after it became aware, or should have become aware, of the event or circumstance. The Particular Conditions may amend this.
Back to textNote 5.
Limitation Act 1980, sections 5 and 8(1) (England and Wales).
Six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued for an action founded on simple contract (section 5); twelve years for an action upon a specialty, which includes a contract made by deed (section 8(1)).
Back to text
- The sample matter and illustrations.
- The parties, events, documents, message IDs and exhibit references in the sample matter and its product demonstrations are fictional, as is the sample amendment to clause 2.24. This does not apply to the named founders, company details or cited external sources. The hashes shown are the real SHA-256 values of the fictional text. Product screens are simplified illustrations built in code, not screenshots of any real matter.
- Plates and imagery.
- The plates are illustrative drawings of the fictional sample matter, made in code for this page. They do not reproduce any real drawing, schedule or bundle.
- Legal summaries.
- Summaries of legislation and contract terms are for orientation only. The statute and the contract govern, contracts are often amended, and nothing on this page is legal advice.
Built by construction disputes practitioners.
VeriCase was founded by William Rogers MCIArb and Warren Kemp, bringing construction claims and legal experience to the same product.
William Rogers MCIArb
Construction claims and forensic quantum specialist. Founder of Quantum Commercial Solutions and Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.
Read William’s background
A construction commercial management professional specialising in claims, forensic quantum and adjudication under the NEC, JCT and FIDIC forms. Founder of Quantum Commercial Solutions in 2016 and Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.
- Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (MCIArb)
- Founder, Quantum Commercial Solutions (2016)
- Forensic quantum and delay claims preparation
- NEC, JCT and FIDIC dispute specialist
Warren Kemp
Construction disputes solicitor and partner at gunnercooke LLP, with experience advising contractors, developers and professional consultants.
Read Warren’s background
Warren advises in relation to construction disputes and is known to be highly skilled and knowledgeable in this field. Clients include developers, contractors and professional consultants in both the public and private sector. He achieves outstanding results through his pragmatic yet tenacious approach. Warren jointly led the construction and engineering team at international law firm DAC Beachcroft until joining gunnercooke LLP in February 2024. Qualified as a solicitor for over 20 years, he provides clients with an operational edge via sharp problem solving to deliver commercial advantage and avoid disputes. Warren is currently working, among his various roles, as General Counsel for United Living (a business approaching £1bn turnover with a telecoms division) and previously worked in-house on secondment for 18 months at global construction consultancy WS Atkins.
- Dispute Resolution Partner, gunnercooke LLP
- Former Joint Head of Construction & Engineering, DAC Beachcroft
- General Counsel, United Living Group
- Solicitor of over 20 years qualification
- Former In-House Counsel (Secondment), WS Atkins (18 months)
- Van Elle Limited v Keynvor Morlift Limited [2023] EWHC 3137 (TCC)
- Celtic Bioenergy Limited v Knowles Limited [2017] EWHC 472 (TCC)
- Middle Level Commissioners v Atkins Limited [2012] EWHC 2884 (TCC)
Practitioners from law firms and claims consultancies hold equity in VeriCase Ltd. Their involvement is not an endorsement by the firms they work for.
Common questions
What can we upload?
Email archives and individual emails, PDFs, Word documents, spreadsheets and images. Scanned pages can be read using text recognition.
Does VeriCase replace our disclosure platform?
No. VeriCase helps you organise the evidence and prepare your case. It works alongside the disclosure and document review software your solicitors already use.
Will the output be accepted by the tribunal?
That is for the tribunal to decide. VeriCase helps you show where the evidence came from and what was done to it. Your advisers remain responsible for checking and presenting the material.
Does the AI write our submissions?
It helps with analysis and draft wording, linked to supporting sources. Your team checks the evidence, edits or rejects suggestions and approves what is used. Responsibility for any submission stays with its author.
Who sees what?
Each person’s role controls what they can access. Sensitive fields, including BCC recipients, are restricted by permission.
See VeriCase in a demonstration.
We will show you how to organise project records, ask questions about the evidence and prepare a claim or response, using sample documents.
If you would like to see VeriCase on your own material, we will first agree confidentiality terms with you.
Request a demonstration opens an email to enquiries@veri-case.com with the subject line completed. Please do not include confidential details of a live matter.
Or write to enquiries@veri-case.com.