(delivering the judgment of the Court): This appeal is from the decision of the learned judge, confirmed after argument in open court, to order inspection of documents stated to be

(a) bills and invoices and contracts made between the defendant and all its nominated sub-contractors in relation to the extension of the Tower Block of Hotel Merlin;

(b) records of wages of defendant's workmen and all bills and invoices for the purchase of materials directly by the defendant in relation to the extension of the Tower Block of Hotel Merlin;

on an application by the respondent.

The respondent was the contractor but apparently not the only contractor for the appellant in the erection of the Tower Block Extension to Hotel Merlin Kuala Lumpur. Strangely for a matter that ran into millions of dollars, no formal building agreement was entered into. The parties were said to be bound by a schedule of rates, payment to be made on measurements taken after completion. The contractor's claim for such measured work on the Tower Block was for $2,106,705.69 but settled for $2,075,000. The contractor however claimed also for $175,550 for preliminaries and $422,336.12 for profit and attendance on P.C. sums. These claims are outstanding. The claim for profit and attendance on P.C. sums is based on bills available to the contractor for work carried out by other contractors to which he says he is, as the main contractor, entitled, but he also says there were other works done by other contractors in respect of which he has not the bills and he is therefore unable to quantify this sum. He believes that he is entitled to more than $422,336.12. He has another claim, for $215,107.42 for other miscellaneous work. It is in respect however of those other contractors, the details of whose work he is unaware of, that he sought inspection. He must know these details before he can quantify his claim for such further sum as may be found due to him on this count.

The defence, insofar as it concerned this claim for profit and attendance on P.C. sums in respect of which the order for discovery was made and which constitutes the subject-matter of this appeal, first accuses the contractor of being inconsistent in his claim and then in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the defence,

"7. The defendant says that the architect firm of Messrs. Eric Taylor dan Rakan-Rakan, the architects having charge of the work related to the said Tower Block, had on diverse occassions repeatedly pointed out to both the plaintiff and the defendant that no proper award or acceptance of tender was ever made by the defendant in respect of the plaintiff's claim for Preliminaries and Profit and Attendance and that the said architects never authorised or supervised such works.

8. The defendant further says that despite repeated requests the plaintiff failed and/or refused to substantiate its claim by submitting proper details and documents in support therefor."

With respect, it seems to us on a reading of these two relevant paragraphs of the statement of defence that there is no denial of the claim by the contractor that he is entitled to the claim for profit and attendance on P.C. sums in respect of work done by other contractors. If this view is correct, it must decide the issue of discovery and inspection of the documents in the possession of the defendant in respect of such work in favour of the contractor.

But the defendant objects to the application purely on procedural grounds. It says the contractor should have asked for a further and better list, alternatively, for an affidavit as to specific documents. He could also ask leave to direct interrogatories to the defendant.

The defendant's contention is not without apparent persuasion. But, if the contractor had done what it was suggested he should do, then the failure of the defendant, to deny either that the contractor was entitled to this head of claim or that there was no such work done or alternatively, if it should be the case, th