CA 27 October 1989. Discussion of the case. Acsim (A) were engaged by Dancon (D) under a subcontract incorporating with amendments the Blue Form . D were owners of the building and the main contractor . There was no main contract. A made an interim application for payment, claiming 98% completion. D refused to pay and asserted claims greatly in excess of A`s application and alleged damage and delay by them. A sought judgement on its interim application. At the hearing, D relied upon the affidavit of their project manager as to cross claims. The affidavit also indicated that there was further evidence that might show that A`s application was not justified by the work carried out. D sought an adjournment to obtain further expert advice. This was refused on the grounds that it would be legally irrelevant; under the Blue Form the main contractor`s only right of set off was in cl.15. D had failed to comply with cl.15., therefore the judge gave A summary judgement. D appealed and sought to