GASTROCRAP

 

Poole Associates Private Limited has successfully sued the Pump Room Singapore for non payment of design fees at a Singapore High Court trial that took place in October 2008. Poole Associates was represented by Drew & Napier LLC. For data about this trial contact Mr. Eugene Tan at Direct Tel: +65 6531 4144, as Poole Associates is under a non-disclosure agreement.

 

Interior design of The Pump Room Singapore  + The Highlander Bar Singapore remains copyright Poole Associates Private Limited, we will not hesitate to take legal action if any details what-so-ever are repeated elsewhere.

 

Somerville [Singapore] Pte Limited has also been blacklisted. Poole Associates will not accept any project with them in any country or territory | 17 Kian Teck Way, Singapore 628739, Tel : 6262 4222

 

The data on this website will not go away under any legal threats or action. Facts are Facts. A written apology for the actions taken by the people listed below to Poole Associates, Ed Poole and Masonworks Pte Ltd, published in the Straits Times as a full page ad, and full payment of all our legal fees incurred is the only solution to removing this website. 

 

The blacklisted directors of the Highlander Singapore are : 

William Graham   S2706594E

237 Arcadia Road #05.04 The Arcadia, Singapore 289844

e:mail : lapssg@yahoo.com

 

The Pump Room at Clark Quay Singapore | Quayside Seafood at Clark Quay Singapore | Peony Jade at Clark Quay Singapore | Peony Jade at Keppel Country Club Singapore | Somerville Pte Ltd Singapore 

George Clark Martin   F5663609U

30A St. Thomas Walk Singapore 238111

e:mail : gcmartin@singnet.com.sg

The Pump Room at Clark Quay Singapore | Highlander Bar at Clark Quay Singapore | Little Saigon Clark Quay Singapore | The Queen & Mangosteen at Vivo City Singapore | China Jump at Chimes Singapore | Ocho at Chimes Singapore | Maracas Cocina Latina at Chijmes Singapore | Cafe Society at Old Parliament House Singapore, Tigerlily Dempsey Hill Singapore 

Read the transcripts from the trial here and see for yourself, the fuckwit testimony of The Pump Room directors, in their own words >

 day 1 | day2 | day 3 | day 4 | day 5 | day 6 

Public Record | Trial Transcripts 2

 

Friday, 31 October 2008

(10.23 am)

     MR PAUL CRISPIN CASIMIR-MROWCZYNSKI (previously affirmed)

         Cross-examination by MR ONG

     MR ONG:  Good morning, Mr Crispin.  I'm sorry that yesterday

         I guess it was a bit heated up.  I hope and I promise

         his Honour that I will try to finish my cross-examining

         in two hours.

     COURT:  Before lunch, any time.

     MR ONG:  Having reviewed your affidavit of

         evidence-in-chief, I think it's good for me to start in

         areas of your evidence which I am in full agreement

         with.  Shall we start there, Mr Crispin?

         Let's start with the sequence of events set out in

         paragraph 2 of your affidavit of evidence-in-chief.  Do

         you have that with you?

    A.  Sorry, which page is that?

    Q.  Yours is the last one, the red-bound affidavit; do you

         see that?

    A.  Yes, I have it.

    Q.  Yours is the last flag in the bundle.

    A.  Yes.

    Q.  As I said, Mr Crispin, this will be areas where I'm in

        full agreement with your evidence.

        Can we establish that as per paragraph 2 --

 

10:25 A.  Sorry, which page?

      Q.  It's marked as page 1.

      A.  Page 1 of my affidavit?

      Q.  Right.  I promise you I will be sticking to your words

          like glue, you understand.

              Paragraph 2 -- are you with me?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Okay.  Would you like to read it for us, the first line?

      A.  Okay, paragraph numbered 2 or paragraph 2 on page 1?

      Q.  I don't know because my copy is a bit different, but

          I assume there's only one paragraph 2.

      A.  You are referring to this page?

      Q.  Right, but this page only has paragraph 1, I think.

      A.  It's numbered 1 but you are calling it paragraph 2, is

          that right?

      Q.  A page and a paragraph are two different things,

          Mr Crispin.

      A.  Why don't you just read the first few words and then

          I will know which one you are referring to.

      Q.  Please turn to the next page, the third line from the

          top.  I'll read it for you.  Let's late make it fast.

              "On or about February 2007, I was approached by one

          William Graham from The Pump Room Pte Ltd to undertake

          a visual inspection and to prepare a report in relation

          to the completed works, additional works and contract

 

10:27     documentation in relation to The Pump Room project ."

              You've got that?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  So that's correct, isn't it?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  So you were saying you were first approached by

          Mr William Graham in February 2007.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  What happened after that, in the next line, would you

          like to read that now?

      A.  Yes:

              "I wrote to William Graham care of Quayside Dining

          Pte Ltd on 6 February 2007 setting out the scope of

          services in paragraph 2 and quoting my fee."

      Q.  That letter is found now at page 4 to 27 of this

          affidavit; correct?

      A.  Yes, correct.

      Q.  So the paragraph 2 you were referring to in your

          testimony must be paragraph 2 of this letter of

          engagement under scope of services at the next page,

          right?

      A.  At page 25, yes.

      Q.  What it says is you are being engaged by Mr William

          Graham, I think the letter says of Quayside Dining Pte

          Ltd?

 

10:28 A.  I was engaged -- in reality I wrote to Quayside Dining

          Pte Ltd because that's the address that I got.

      Q.  So you were approached by Mr William Graham who told

          you, "Prepare me a letter of engagement", and this is

          what you prepared, isn't it?

      A.  Or a quotation -- this was the agreed quotation.

      Q.  So in this quotation, it sets out your conditions of

          engagement, doesn't it?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Let's read paragraphs 2.1 to 2.6, shall we?

              Paragraph 2.1 -- I'll just abbreviate it, you are to

          undertake a visual survey of the completed works, right?

              Paragraph 2.2, a visual survey of the variation

          works; correct?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  2.3, to consider any necessary rectification works; 2.4,

          to peruse any available contract documentation.

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  So you are basically to read all the contracts?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  2.5, you are to provide an overview, summarising the

          findings.

              Now I need to stop you, when you say "findings" you

          would also include findings on the contract documents;

          is that right?

 

10:29 A.  Yes.

      Q.  So let's go to paragraph 3 of your affidavit, back to

          page 2.

              What it says is "William Graham" -- I'll call him

          Mr Graham from hereon, if that's okay:

              "[Mr] Graham agreed to my quotation and I therefore

          proceeded with my inspection."

              Is that right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  So let's take stock.  First Mr Graham approached you,

          then you gave him a quotation to engage your services;

          is that correct?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Then he agreed to that and you started work?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  So following your letter of engagement -- let's look at

          paragraph 4, it was after you were engaged that

          Mr William Graham gave you all these documents, right?

          Let me summarise them.  Your paragraph 4(i) you have

          Ed Poole's agreement, you have Mason Works' quotation

          and invoices, you've got Frederick Wong's agreement and

          then you've got Ed Poole's drawings.

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  You didn't have Mason Works' contracts, did you?

      A.  The contract that I saw was only what was referred to on

 

10:31     the Ed Poole drawings under subparagraph (iv), which was

          really just sort of specification, not an actual

          contract between the 2nd defendant and the plaintiff.

      Q.  Right.  So you prepared your report on the basis that

          there was no contract between Mason Works and Pump Room,

          right?

      A.  Well, I prepared my report based on the documents that

          I was given.

      Q.  Right.  Let me turn to your report at page 162 of this

          affidavit.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Do you see a note (b)?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Just to put every one of us in the right context, this

          note is of course following your evaluation of all the

          works in the preceding pages; right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  They come under the heading of "Valuation" at item 3 of

          your report.  So these are notes to your valuation

          report.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Note (b) says:

              "Many of the quotations do not appear to have been

          accepted by the client."

              Is that correct?

 

10:33 A.  Yes, correct.

      Q.  So if it has not been accepted, there can't be an

          agreement; am I right?

      A.  Sorry, you mean an agreement in general or for that

          individual --

      Q.  An agreement between Mason Works and The Pump Room.

      A.  That one -- sorry, I don't quite understand what you

          mean.

      Q.  Let's just take a step back, Mr Crispin.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  The terms of your brief were to read the contracts and

          give findings on the contracts.  You have just told us

          in paragraph 4 of your testimony that you didn't have a

          contract between Mason Works and The Pump Room.  All of

          this is correct, isn't it, I am not putting words in

          your mouth?

      A.  What I said was I didn't see the contract.

      Q.  Right, so that's why, because you didn't see a contract,

          you didn't make any findings on the contract between

          Mason Works and The Pump Room; that has to be right?

      A.  Yes, the only findings I made were in reference to what

          was referred to on the Ed Poole drawings.

      Q.  In fact you have made it as a responsible professional,

          under paragraph (b) at page 162, just now the notes to

          your evaluation, that in fact even the quotations

 

10:35     themselves don't seem to have been accepted by the

          client.  That should fortify your belief that there was

          no contract, shouldn't it?

      A.  No, it doesn't mean to say that there is no contract.

      Q.  But you haven't seen any.

      A.  No, no, there is the issue of the contract between the

          plaintiff and the 2nd defendant and then there's the

          issue of the quotations, some of which are accepted and

          some of which don't appear to be accepted because they

          are not signed.

      Q.  And your brief was to make findings on it, wasn't it?

      A.  I made findings on the provided documentation.

      Q.  And because you didn't see a contract, you never ever

          referred to a contract in your report, did you?

      A.  Well, I didn't refer to a contract because obviously

          I couldn't.

      Q.  And you didn't make a finding as to that contract?

      A.  I didn't make any finding to the contract I didn't see,

          correct.

      Q.  So, as far as you were concerned, you had only seen

          quotations and invoices from Mason Works, (ii) in

          paragraph 4, page 2 of your affidavit?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  But you managed to refer to Ed Poole's agreement; is

          that correct?

 

10:36 A.  I did, yes.

      Q.  And you managed to refer to Fred Wong's agreement at

          (iii) on the next page?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  So you see, when you saw contracts, you noted them; when

          you didn't see contracts, you didn't say a contract.

          That's being very responsible, I agree with you, right?

          That's why you didn't make any findings on the contracts

          between Mason Works and The Pump Room?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Let's go to these invoices that you've got.  In

          particular let me refer to page 98 of your affidavit --

          have you seen it?

      A.  Yes, page 98.

      Q.  This is one of the quotations under your

          paragraph 4(ii), right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Keeping your eye on page 98, let's read what appears on

          the bottom left-hand corner of this quotation.  Do you

          see it?

      A.  The handwritten note, right, yes.

      Q.  Let's read it together, shall we?  It says:

              "To be reviewed and approved as reasonable by

          qualified engineer Crispin."

              Am I correct?

 

10:38 A.  Correct.

      Q.  It appears to jump right to the top left-hand corner of

          the page.  It says, "Same retention as main contract",

          does it not?

      A.  I think so, yes.

      Q.  Then, after that, it says, "Failing to find.  Crispin to

          recommend."

              Did you look at the handwritten comments when you

          perused the quotations and invoices?

      A.  Initially no, but of course I noticed it once I started

          looking through the documents.

      Q.  Right.  And, having seen it, did you decide, on seeing

          this clause, to have a separate section perhaps in your

          report on this?

      A.  Sorry, a separate section on ...?

      Q.  Well, I mean, you were supposed to present a fairly big

          omnibus report that also covers Ed Poole's agreement,

          Fred Wong's agreement, Ed Poole's drawings, Mason Works'

          quotations and invoices.  Did you think about looking at

          this referral and saying, "Hm, should I touch on this

          separately in my report?"

      A.  Well, I am not sure what I would be meant to say

          regarding it.

      Q.  So you did nothing -- you didn't act on this, right?

      A.  Well, it didn't change anything in my report.

 

10:40 Q.  Right.  I suppose, having read it, you must have

          wondered, "Hey, I am not a qualified engineer, am I?"

          Are you?

      A.  Well, I didn't wonder in particular regarding that,

          because very often people use different terms for

          professionals without necessarily knowing the

          differences.

      Q.  But you looked at it and said, "No, it shouldn't change

          any bit of what I propose to do with my report", right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  So you proceeded full speed ahead and you completed your

          report around 8 March 2007, didn't you?

      A.  Well, there was a draft first.

      Q.  Right.  Your client, Mr Graham -- if I can refer you to

          page 98 of his affidavit, from the next affidavit

          bundle -- shall I read it for you?

      A.  Maybe I will just find it.  Sorry, page 98 of

          Mr Graham's affidavit?

      Q.  I'm sorry, paragraph 98 of Mr William Graham's

          affidavit.

      A.  Page 38, is it?

      Q.  No, I am sorry, page 32, paragraph 82.

      A.  Page 32, paragraph 82, okay.

      Q.  Mr William Graham testified that some time in March --

          "8 March 2007, Crispin Casimir gave me his draft

 

10:43     report", so he must be right.

      A.  Sorry, who must be right?

      Q.  Well, your report is dated March.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Your client confirms that he got it on 8 March, and they

          don't clash, do they?

      A.  It doesn't clash, no.

      Q.  So you completed this report on 8 March --

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  -- 2007, and whether you call it draft, or you call it

          final, you have never significantly made any changes to

          this report, have you?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  I'm going to ask you to bear with me now.  We will look

          at your report in some detail.  Could you turn to

          page 152 of your affidavit.  Let's take the first line,

          shall we, "Introduction":

              "CC Building Surveyors Pte Ltd was appointed by The

          Pump Room Pte Ltd in relation to a property at Clarke

          Quay, Singapore."

              Correct?

              That matches what you said in your affidavit in that

          when you prepared your letter of engagement, the only

          person signing it was Mr William Graham; correct?

      A.  On behalf of the company.

 

10:45 Q.  So Mr Ed Poole didn't sign your letter of engagement,

          did he?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Mason Works didn't sign your letter of engagement, did

          they?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Mr Fred Wong from C&P Services did not sign your letter

          of engagement, did he?

      A.  No.

      Q.  So it is correct, your report, the only client in

          question is The Pump Room Pte Ltd, isn't it?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Let's go to the second paragraph.  It says:

              "The brief was to undertake a visual inspection and

          to prepare a report in relation to the pricing of the

          works.  The report, however, was subject to perusal of

          the contractor's requested final account, and so the

          figures remain provisional."

              Are you aware, Mr Crispin, that on 3 February,

          before your engagement, there was a final accounts

          meeting between Mason Works and The Pump Room?

      A.  Between Mason Works and The Pump Room -- a final account

          meeting?  Well, I am not sure what that means.  Does

          that mean the final account was provided?

      Q.  No, I am just asking.  It doesn't matter whether you

 

10:47     were aware or whether we should correctly classify it as

          the final accounts meeting.

              My point is were you aware of such a meeting that

          tried to finalise everything relating to the project?

      A.  No.

      Q.  You were not, right?

              Let's look at your specific brief following from

          there.  Bullet points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 correspond to

          paragraphs 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 of your

          letter of engagement, don't they?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Right.  So far, from what we have seen, your report was

          initiated by your letter of engagement, and not agreed

          to by anybody else besides The Pump Room Pte Ltd; am

          I correct?

      A.  Whether it was agreed to or not by anybody else, I don't

          know.

      Q.  Well, it was not agreed between them and you even?

      A.  Sorry, between ...?

      Q.  You remember you agreed with me that Ed Poole didn't

          sign your letter of engagement?

      A.  Yes, I agree.

      Q.  Mason Works didn't sign?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  So you were carrying out this report pursuant to

 

10:48     a letter of engagement that's only been accepted by The

          Pump Room Pte Ltd, weren't you?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Let's go to item 2, "Background Information".

      A.  Page 153.

      Q.  The next page, 153, yes.  I'll just move along as fast

          as I can:

              "It was noted that relatively major addition and

          alteration works had been undertaken at the site at

          Clarke Quay, Block B, on behalf The Pump Room Pte Ltd.

              The main works were undertaken by Mason Works Pte

          Ltd whilst the piling works for the brewery were

          undertaken by Soil and Foundation."

              Correct so far?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  "The interior architecture and design consultancy

          services, including surveying, designing, detailing,

          observing the construction installation and project

          management was undertaken by Poole Associates Pte Ltd."

              Correct?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  "The scope of work" -- I guess meaning your scope of

          work -- "did not include for structural or mechanical

          and electrical services."

              Sorry, could have been Poole Associates's scope of

 

10:50     works; right?

      A.  Correct.  How you corrected it is correct, yes.

      Q.  Okay.  I am sorry for my wrong interpretation earlier

          on:

              "However, Poole Associates Pte Ltd was to arrange

          for the appointment of other consultants as

          appropriate."

              Correct?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  "The M&E consultant was Project Portfolio.  C&P Contract

          Services Pte Ltd was the project manager."

              That was the one co-counsel Mr Tan took you through

          yesterday, right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  The next paragraph:

              "Poole Associates Pte Ltd was also to evaluate and

          agree with the client regarding the type of contracts

          and tender procurement.  However, there was no evidence

          that a tender exercise or negotiated contract exercise

          had been carried out.

              Poole Associates Pte Ltd's scope of work also

          included assessing the limitations of the existing

          elements.  This should have included the floor slabs."

              I am not losing you, am I?

      A.  No, no.

 

10:51 Q.  Let's move on quickly to the next page:

              "It was noted that the contractual terms, included

          at the beginning of the drawings documentation, included

          the following, being:

              1.  Contract to commence on 12 September 2006.  (No

          completion date).

              2.  Liquidated damages set at $300 per day.

              3.  Defects liability period of 6 months.

              4.  10 per cent retention during the defects

          liability period.

              There was no provided documentation regarding

          certification of payments and/or the deduction of any

          retention money.

              There were also no specific details stated regarding

          third party liability insurance or any performance bond.

          A 'contractor's all risks insurance policy' existed for

          the period from 12 September 2006 to 31 December 2006.

          (This should also have included the defects liability

          period).  There was no evidence of any performance bond

          being issued.

              The intended completion date appeared to be

          31 December 2006, based upon the above insurance policy

          and the main contractor's provided work programme.

          There were no specific details regarding payment claims,

          and their frequency.

 

10:53         The works themselves included the construction of

          the following items, being:  Seating area, bar areas,

          kitchen, brewery/cold room area.

              In due course as-built drawings should have been

          prepared."

              Now, the rest of these pages, I will spare you  of

          my droning voice.  Let's just look at it from here.

              So far, from what we have read, would you agree with

          me there's nothing in here that talks about the

          quotation at page 98 of your affidavit stating your

          review as a qualified engineer?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  So while you were preparing the report, you never

          thought, "Hang on, I should talk about that quotation

          here, shouldn't I?"  You didn't think that way, did you?

      A.  Not for the report.  As I said, it wouldn't change my

          findings.

      Q.  So if anyone were to tell you, whilst you were preparing

          the report, "Wait a moment, you should talk about the

          price review in Q1671, the review clause", you would

          have said, "No, that's a mistake", wouldn't you?

      A.  Sorry, I would have said it was a mistake?  Which part

          are you referring to?

      Q.  No, I am imagining, if someone were right beside you

          when you were preparing this report and said, "Hang on,

 

10:55     shall we talk about that price review document we saw?",

          what would your response have been?

      A.  I would have said, "Yes, we can talk about it."

      Q.  But you didn't talk about it.

      A.  I talked about it but I've not referred to it

          specifically in my report.

      Q.  Where did you talk about it?

      A.  Because during the completion of this report, I met

          Mason Works, I met the 2nd defendant.

      Q.  Mr Crispin, just talking about your written report here.

      A.  I thought you were talking about page 98.

      Q.  Remember, the scenario was if someone was sitting beside

          you as you were preparing the report and said, "Wait

          a minute, let's talk about the price review document",

          your response was, "I don't hear you", your response was

          nothing.

      A.  No, that wasn't what I said.

      Q.  Okay, let's look at it this way.  After your letter of

          engagement, I asked you just now, you said no, it

          doesn't change your going full speed ahead with

          preparing the report -- right?

      A.  I didn't say "full speed ahead" but I proceeded with my

          report.

      Q.  You went ahead, you didn't factor in this price review

          document in your preparation of the report?

 

10:57 A.  I didn't factor in that paragraph.

      Q.  At all?

      A.  Sorry?

      Q.  You didn't factor it in at all in your report?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Correct.  Now your report was completed in March 2007 --

          you didn't talk about that price review document either,

          right?

      A.  You mean that paragraph?

      Q.  Right.

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  From March 2007 to the time you signed your affidavit,

          27 September 2008, one and a half years later, you still

          didn't talk about that price review document, did you?

      A.  No.

      Q.  So, isn't it fair to say that price review document did

          not factor in your report at all.

      A.  It didn't -- it wasn't referred to in my report.

      Q.  Because it did not enter your mind at all.

      A.  No, it's because, as I said, it wouldn't make any

          difference to my findings.

      Q.  Right, makes no difference is the same as not entering

          your mind.

      A.  No, it's not the same.

      Q.  To your mind it's not the same?

 

10:58 A.  No, it's not "to my mind it's not the same"; it's not

          the same.

      Q.  All right.  Just a minor point with regard to this price

          review document; let's look at page 98 again, so this is

          the price review document I was referring to, right?

      A.  Page 98.

      Q.  Right.  After the questioning with Mr Sreenivasan

          yesterday, there is some question about whether it's

          more appropriate for it to be reviewed by a quantity

          surveyor, isn't it?

      A.  You mean there was, yes.

      Q.  Yes.  Are you aware that your clients themselves

          considered appointing a quantity surveyor sometime in

          February 2008?

      A.  Yes, I was aware.

      Q.  So perhaps that was meant to cover this price review

          document, wasn't it?

      A.  Well, as far as I know, they decided not to proceed,

          although I'm not sure whether that's correct.

      Q.  Would you want to see some confirmation of your clients

          wanting to appoint this quantity surveyor or you are

          perfectly happy with that?

      A.  It's not necessary.

      Q.  Mr Crispin, I'm now going to come to a slightly more

          contentious area and I think I should give you more due

 

11:02     warning.

              Let's go now to your valuation report.  That is at

          section 3, page 159 of your affidavit of

          evidence-in-chief; am I correct?

      A.  Okay.

      Q.  Before we start on the individual items, can I just take

          stock of what happened yesterday.  Let's start with the

          price of steel.  The gist of what happened yesterday was

          you made an assumption that the price of steel and

          labour -- well, it started as $1.20 and after some

          further study of the cost information quarterly issued

          by CPG, we've reached some sort the consensus that the

          $1.20 did not include certain items of labour.

      A.  Which is what I had always said in the first place.

      Q.  All right.  So from $1.20, we eventually settled at

          $1.50; is that not right?

      A.  I wouldn't say that we settled.  There was the figure of

          $1.20 and there was the figure of $3.50.

      Q.  Mr Crispin, I have before me the verbatim transcript of

          your answers yesterday.  Shall I read out the questions

          and answers?

              Your Honour, it's at page 100 of the verbatim

          transcript.

              I'm reading from this page to the two following

          pages, that's where it shows your transition from $1.20.

 

11:05     Feel free to correct me if the verbatim reports are

          wrong, okay.

              Mr Sreenivasan says:

              "Mr Crispin, I have not asked you -- this morning

          and we are on digital recording, you gave the valuation

          of the steelworks in those items of the quotation that

          included labour and materials and everything at 1.20

          per kg; am I right?

              Answer:  No, not including labour.  I am saying the

          $1.20 per kilogram is supply and deliver.

              Question:  So what's the total cost for the

          steelworks, supply, deliver, fabrication, installation

          and everything else?

              Answer:  Then I need a piece of paper to put it in

          those terms, or a calculator and a piece of paper."

              Apparently you didn't do previous calculations,

          that's why you gave us the answer earlier on that it was

          $1.20.

      A.  No, you asked me to look at it from a different

          perspective.

      Q.  Okay, never mind, let's read on -- but that was your

          answer so far, right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  So you were calculating more or less the first time?

      A.  No, I was calculating the first time on that basis.

 

11:07 Q.  Okay, on that basis, right.

              Let us your at your calculation after that.

              "Just to interrupt you a moment, Mr Crispin, you

          have not calculated this separately in this manner

          before, right?

              Answer:  I have not combined --

              Question:  Not in this manner?

              Answer:  No.

              Question:  $2.15 in total?

              Answer:  No, I have not done it yet.  (Pause.)

              Question:  Have you got a figure for us?

              Answer:  Yes.

              Question:  The kg all in?

              Answer:  The materials and labour per kilogram, I'm

          saying $1.50, for this particular Pump Room structure."

              So you did end up agreeing $1.50?

      A.  No, I tended up calculating $1.50.

      Q.  It's not fixed yet.  I'm inviting you, if you can --

      A.  I don't have my calculation in front of me now.  No,

          I wrote it down yesterday.

      Q.  So are we agreed today it is not $1.50?

      A.  No, no, no, what I was saying was I was asked to

          calculate in a certain way, and based on that method it

          was $1.50, materials plus labour.

      Q.  Right.

 

11:08 COURT:  So is it the same figure today?

      A.  It's still $1.50 based on this method, yes.

      MR ONG:  Thank you, your Honour.

              Yesterday you were aware that CPG schedule of rates

          put it at a range between $3.50 to $3.80; that's in my

          2nd defendant's bundle 2, page 430.

      A.  I'm sorry.

      Q.  A blue binding, slim volume, page 430.  Interestingly

          enough, if you look at the top right-hand corner, my

          photocopy can(?) say that it's fixed schedule of rates,

          doesn't it?

      A.  It does.

      Q.  So CPG's fixed schedule of rates values materials and

          labour, in that same section you went through at length

          with Mr Sreenivasan, at $3.50 to $3.80.

      A.  I think probably more accurately $3.50 to $3.70 under

          the same section.

      Q.  Right.

              Now, these are assumptions on which it is made,

          isn't it -- you know, whether it is $1.50 per kilogram

          or $3.50 per kilogram, $3.70 per kilogram of steelwork,

          these are the assumptions on which we base our

          valuation, isn't it?

      A.  Well, it is assumptions -- I used the $1.20 figure.

      Q.  But these are assumptions, right?

 

11:10 A.  Sorry, an assumption in what respect?

      Q.  On which to value variation works.  We went through that

          in to the CPG's cost index quarterly.

      A.  One has to make a judgment which is the relevant figure

          to use.

      Q.  And these figures were used to value variation works,

          weren't they?

      A.  They can.

      Q.  So if we use these assumptions -- let's see.  If you

          were to turn to page 433 of that same bundle, two pages

          down.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Let's look at the as-built tonnage (unclear) by RSP.

      A.  433, yes.

      Q.  We have as-built on the right-hand column under "Total",

          18,541.1 kilograms, multiplied by 3.50 at the lower end

          of the spectrum.  Do you want to see my calculation,

          Mr Crispin?

      A.  I will listen first and then --

      Q.  Okay.  My calculator says $64,893.85.  Let's look at

          your valuation at page 160.  The right-hand column is

          your valuation figure for the items of work, am I right,

          page 160?

      A.  Yes, correct.

      Q.  So let's look at item number 10, the last item on the

 

11:13     page.  You valued the entire construction of the brew

          house and cold room structure as being $40,000?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  If one uses CPG's rate at the lowest level, $3.50 per

          kilogram, the cost of steel and labour alone used in the

          brew house would have exceeded $40,000, wouldn't it?

      A.  Yes, if you choose to use that rate.

      Q.  Okay.  Let me use your rate, Mr Crispin.  $1.50, right?

      A.  No, my rate was $1.20.

      Q.  Huh?

      A.  You have to be clear.  The rate that I said was $1.20

          for materials; the rate that was calculated yesterday

          was $1.50 for materials and labour.

      Q.  Right, and for the proposed construction of the brew

          house and cold room structure, we are talking about

          materials and labour, aren't we?

      A.  We are, yes.

      Q.  So why are we going to $1.20?

      A.  Firstly, I'm making it clear what we are actually

          talking about; secondly, my valuation of $40,000 had

          labour as a separate item.  Now we are referring to

          labour and materials inclusive, which is the $1.50 per

          kilogram figure, so I am just clarifying.

      Q.  You are just clarifying.  Let me clarify.  Didn't you

          assure his Honour that today your final figure is


 

11:15     $1.50 per kilogram materials and labour?

      A.  Yes, but I'm just clarifying which figure we are using.

      Q.  Okay, we are clarified.  I am asking you: do you want to

          stick by this 1.50 per kilogram?

      A.  Yes, that's okay.

      Q.  With your consent, let me try to compute -- 18,541.10 --

          our figures are in agreement, 27, 811.65?

      A.  Sorry, let me just do it -- 27, 811.65.

      Q.  If we deducted this from your valuation of $40,000, we

          are left with $12,188.35; am I correct?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  I have benefitted from your evidence yesterday.  I was

          impressed by your point that we must compare like for

          like.  So far we have only calculated the materials and

          labour for steel, for the structured steelworks, but

          that's not the whole picture, is it?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  You need to do mechanical & electrical works, you need

          to do some preparatory work, bedding, demolition, the

          cold room electrical installations -- we're not talking

          about your normal bar fridge, are we, we're talking

          about industrial strength cooling equipment; am I right?

              So the rest of your valuation is 12,188.35 after the

          steelwork and labour and materials are excluded?

      A.  Correct, yes.

 

11:18 Q.  Let's see your note (a) at page 162.  This is the

          assumption that forms part of your valuation, isn't it?

              "Typically new services would cost approximately

          $450 per metre squared."

              That's the yardstick you used to value the rest of

          the non-steel works; am I right?

      A.  Well, I wouldn't say it was the yardstick.  It was more

          a sort of example -- it wasn't a yardstick.

      Q.  But it is kind of a good guide, shall we say?

      A.  To some extent it is a guide, yes.

      Q.  So let's take this figure, 12,188.35.  If we divided it

          by $450 per metre square, it must presume that the total

          area occupied by the brewery can be no more than

          27 square metres -- my calculator got that.  All I did

          was I divided that final figure, the figure of $12,188,

          I divided that by $450 per square metre, using your

          note.  It must drive me to the conclusion that the area

          occupied by the brewery has to be no more than 28 square

          metres; am I right?

      A.  No, you are not right.

      Q.  What?

      A.  No.

      Q.  I'm using your guide, Mr Crispin.

      A.  Sorry?

      Q.  I'm using your guidelines.

 

11:20 A.  No, you are misusing my guidelines.  That guideline is

          referring to M&E services which generally comes under

          other headings and other variations or quotations.

      Q.  So you are saying that now we should ignore your note

          that "typically new services would cost approximately

          $450 per square metre"?

      A.  No, I am not saying that, but I am saying that figure --

      Q.  Why can't I use it in my calculation?

      A.  No, let me finish, then.  What I'm saying is that that

          figure is a guideline in relation to M&E services, for

          the other areas where there are M&E services.  My

          valuation of $40,000 basically for the steel structure

          and the floor slab, it's not for services elsewhere in

          the restaurant or kitchen.

      Q.  Right, and I have just taken your guideline for the

          steel away from your 40,000 valuation, that's how I got

          $12,188.

      A.  No, but it's not meant to be applied for this area, for

          the cold room and --

      Q.  You mean there are no M&E services involved in getting a

          brew house working?

      A.  No, I am not saying that.

      Q.  Well, then, if I can't use 450 per square metre, I can't

          use it at all.

      A.  No, what I'm doing is when I have broken down my

 

11:22     valuation, I'm following the quotations or variations,

          so I'm working it on the basis of what work is in each

          particular quotation or variation.

      Q.  Isn't that another way of saying we should ignore

          $450 per square metre?

      A.  No, I am saying that you should ignore it, I'm just

          saying --

      Q.  Then I use 450 per square metres.

      A.  No, you didn't let me finish.  What I am saying is you

          are trying to apply it at the wrong location and in the

          wrong valuation.  The Mason Works quotation which you

          referred to --

      Q.  Mr Crispin.

      A.  No, let me finish.  The Mason Works quotation for this

          particular item is basically dealing with the cold room

          and the brew house structure, and the floor.

              M&E services are dealt with under other items, so

          you're trying to sort of combine them together but

          that's not how it should be done and that's not the

          intention.

      Q.  My question is simple: can I apply $450 per square metre

          to M&E works?

      A.  Yes, but you cannot apply it in the way that you are

          trying to apply it for the cold room and the brew house.

      Q.  I am a complete novice, Mr Crispin.  I'm following your

 

11:23     guidance, $1.50 per kilogram for the steel structure; am

          I right?

      A.  $1.50, correct.

      Q.  Let's go back to my very elementary calculations.  For

          the steel, page 433, RSP's computation tells us that

          18,541.1 kilos of steel were used; am I right?

      A.  Correct, yes.

      Q.  So, I multiply it by 1.50 -- we all agreed -- that means

          your cost of steelwork and steel alone, am I right, is

          that it's 27,811.65?

      A.  For labour and materials.

      Q.  For steel and steel alone?

      A.  Yes, correct.

      Q.  Meaning I deducted this figure from your valuation --

          I'm not doing anything with Mason Works, and my clients

          would kill me if I do.  I'm looking at your valuation,

          Mr Crispin.  Am I right to then suspect that your

          $40,000 valuation, taking away the steelworks and

          materials at 27,811.65, leaves all the other works, be

          it mechanical, electrical, air-conditioning, hacking,

          sawing, wasting, removal of debris, demolition -- all of

          it is only now valued at 12,188.35?

      A.  No, that's not correct.

      Q.  Are you saying, Mr Crispin, that when you value the brew

          house at $40,000, steel, M&E, structural, demolition,

 

11:26     all in, wasn't based on $1.50 per kilogram for steel?

      A.  The $1.50 per kilogram is based on the material and

          labour cost for the steel structure.

      Q.  So I am asking you, when you arrive at $40,000 for works

          which my clients quoted $266,067, you valued all of that

          at $40,000, didn't you?

      A.  Well, I'm --

      Q.  Item 10.

      A.  No, no, I know.  Let me speak.

              Firstly, when you refer to the 226,000, that's for

          the cold room, the brew house and the mezzanine, so the

          mezzanine is not being dealt with, that's being taken

          out, so it's dealing with the cold room and the brew

          house.

              The particular item that I have given by $40,000

          valuation for, it's for the cold room and brew house

          structure and for the floor slab, because M&E works come

          under other quotations.

      Q.  Let's look at item 10 of your valuation, page 160.

              Do you remember, Mr Crispin, I promised you that

          I would be sticking closely to your words.  I'm asking

          you simply, did you value the entire construction and

          brew house and cold room structure at $40,000; "yes" or

          "no"?

      A.  Yes.

 

11:28 Q.  Sticking to your valuation, you have testified that

          steel comes at $1.50 per kilo, including labour and

          material -- I'm using that same figure applying to your

          valuation, that's all I am doing -- am I correct?

      A.  That's correct, yes.

      Q.  So I come back to my computation again, $1.50 multiplied

          by 18,541 kilos alone came to 27,811.65.

      A.  Correct, yes.

      Q.  So we eliminate all the steel from your $40,000

          valuation, it must stand to reason that anything else

          that's not still related in your valuation is only worth

          12,188.35 -- are we correct?

      A.  For the cold room and brew house structure?

      Q.  Right, so the construction of the brew house and cold

          room structure included demolition, included structural,

          included M&E works, doesn't it -- otherwise you can't

          get the brew going -- I can't drink beer out of there?

      A.  No, that's not correct.  Firstly there's no

          demolition -- there is construction but there's not

          demolition.  As I said before, M&E works are under other

          quotations or variations and have been looked at

          separately.  I am referring to the cold room and brew

          house structure.

      Q.  So what else are you saying is there besides the steel?

      A.  For the cold room and brew house structure, you mean?

 

11:30 Q.  Yes.

      A.  There's the cold room and brew house structure steel

          structure and the floor, the floor slab.

      Q.  No mechanical and electrical installation at all?  How

          are we going to drink our beer, Mr Crispin?

      A.  No, no, the brewery equipment is a completely separate

          item.

      Q.  And you don't have to do any hacking, any installation

          to make sure that the electrical fittings fit?

      A.  The electrical -- any electrical works are under

          separate quotations, not under this quotation.

      Q.  Your valuation says "for proposed construction and brew

          house and cold room structure".

      A.  Yes, and the operative word is "structure".

      Q.  The operative worth is not "construction"?

      A.  No, it's "structure", which is what I have been saying.

      Q.  Let's take a different tack, Mr Crispin.  Let's look at

          the quotation for Mason Works that you have been

          studying very assiduously.  Let me refer you to page 87

          of your own affidavit.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Item number 1, "Preliminaries", 1.1, are you there?

      A.  I am, yes.

      Q.  "Application for permit to pile, endorsement and

          submission of all building control documents for

 

11:32     structural works and co-ordination with various

          nominated subcon and appointed site QPs and COW [clerk

          of works]."

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Do you have to do that in the proposed construction of

          brew house structure and cold room for The Pump Room?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Insurance, 1.3.  Do you have to effect insurance?

      A.  There should already be insurance for the project, so

          I don't think there should be additional insurance.

      Q.  All right.  2.0, 2.1, 2.2, they are all the steelworks

          so we have covered that, right?

              Let's look at 2.3:

              "Labour and material to cast floor slab complete

          with 1 layer of BRC A10 and 140 mm thick grade C30

          ready-mix concrete to entire steel structure floor as

          per RSP drawing S/B/1/01 dated 30 October 2006."

              That's not steel, is it?

      A.  No.

      Q.  "2.4  Labour and material to infill extended floor area

          with high density form complete with 1 layer BRC A10 and

          top off with 140 mm thick grade C30 concrete as per

          discussion with Mr Jiang of RSP."

              We've got to factor in those, don't we?

      A.  Correct, yes.

 

11:34 Q.  All of this is part of your $40,000 valuation minus the

          steel, isn't it?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  "2.5  Labour and material to apply brush-on

          waterproofing coat to flooring ... 112 square metre."

              That was the -- now I know the area of the brew

          house.

      A.  No, no, it's not, because that 112 includes upturns, so

          that is the surface area, not the floor area.

      Q.  But we do require this labour and material to apply

          brush-on waterproofing coat on flooring, isn't it?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  It's one of your specialties, isn't it?

              "2.6  Labour and material to sand and cement screed

          above flooring include construction of scupper drain (as

          discussed with Alex Chasko) and level floor screed with

          gradient to fall toward drain."

              We have to do that, don't we?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  "2.7  [Mason Works had to] supply and install 300 x 300

          homogenous tiles to match kitchen type (as discussed

          with Alex Chasko) for entire floor inclusive of scupper

          drain area -- 91.8 square metres."

              Right?

      A.  Correct.

 

11:36 Q.  So in fact the whole restaurant plus brewery is about

          91 square metres?

      A.  Sorry, say that again?

      Q.  The floor area of the entire restaurant and microbrewery

          is actually about 91 square metres?

      A.  No, no.  This is referring to the brew house and cold

          room, it's actually a bit less.

      Q.  For the record, Mr Ed Poole has shown me his

          computation, it's 83 square metre, the entire premises;

          would you agree with that?

      A.  Sorry, 83 square metres for ...?

      Q.  I'm sorry, in fact, because this is for the brew house

          structure itself, in fact, yes, the floor area, you are

          talking about the brew house, yes, it is about

          91.8 square metres -- right?

      A.  No, I do not agree.

      Q.  It's a bit less than that.  How much less than that?

      A.  I calculated it at about 75 square metres.

      Q.  Okay, 75 square metres, I don't know where to apply my

          450 per square metre?

      A.  No, as I said earlier, you are applying it in the wrong

          place.

      Q.  Yes, I know, I'm just a stubborn mathematician.

              "2.8  Labour and material to fabricate and install

          stainless steel solid flat bar hairline finished scupper

 

11:37     drain cover in segments of approximately 1,200 mm length

          times 300 mm width."

              Am I correct -- you've got to do that for the brew

          house, don't we?

      A.  It is a metal cover for the scupper drain.

      Q.  We do need that, don't we?

      A.  Well it's allowed for and concluded.

      Q.  So it's all part of your $40,000?

      A.  Yes.

      COURT:  Mr Ong, at this juncture, we will take a five-minute

          break.

      (11.39 am)

                             (Short break)

      (11.57 am)

      COURT:  Yes.

      MR ONG:  Shall we continue, Mr Crispin?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  I will take a step back from my earlier line.  Let's go

          somewhere else, shall we?

              Let me take you through note (b) at page 162 of your

          affidavits, the notes to your valuation report.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  It says here:

              "Many of the quotations do not appear to have been

          accepted by the client", meaning Pump Room, isn't it?

 

12:01 A.  Correct.

      Q.  So because they have not been accepted by the client,

          you were obliged to do a valuation of the works; am

          I correct?

      A.  No.

      Q.  It's in line with your brief, isn't it, because you were

          supposed to review the pricing and reasonableness of the

          works on the basis that your clients didn't accept these

          quotations?

      A.  No, no, I wasn't saying that.

              You're saying -- correct me if I am wrong -- that

          many of the quotations do not appear to have been

          accepted as in, you know, there is a dispute -- is that

          what you are saying?

      Q.  No, I am saying exactly what you are saying.  I'm asking

          you if you made your valuation precisely because the

          quotations have not been accepted by your client?

      A.  I mean accepted, you know, a formal acceptance; in other

          words some have been signed and chopped and some

          haven't.

      Q.  Right.  So you are saying that you know they have not

          been formally accepted, right, which is why you made

          your valuation, isn't it?

      A.  I made my valuation because I was asked to make

          a valuation.

 

12:02 Q.  You were asked to make the valuation because that's your

          job, basically?

      A.  Yes, because that's what I was asked to do.

      Q.  So it's irrelevant to you whether your clients had

          accepted the quotations or not?

      A.  Yes, my observation --

      Q.  Answer my question, Mr Crispin.

      A.  It's irrelevant because that wasn't the point I was

          trying to make.

              The point I was trying to make is that when I looked

          at the various quotations some were signed, and there

          are examples which are not signed, that's what I mean --

          signed or confirmed.

      Q.  So whether your clients signed or confirmed any

          quotation is irrelevant to your valuation?

      A.  Well, I still looked at the quotations, whether they are

          signed or not.

      Q.  Can you answer "yes" or "no"?

      A.  It's still relevant to my valuation, because I looked at

          all the documentation, but my observation was some of

          quotations had been formally accepted and some had not.

      Q.  If all the quotations had been accepted, would you still

          make your valuation?

      A.  I would still make my valuation, yes.

      Q.  Even if each and every quotation has been accepted?

 

12:04 A.  Yes, because these were accepted by The Pump Room, but

          I would have actually expected these to have been

          accepted by the project manager on behalf of the client,

          The Pump Room in this case.

      Q.  Anyway, let me just take you through each and every

          quotation for the record.  Item 2 of page 159 of your

          report -- do you have it?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  This must be a quotation for additional air-conditioning

          works, VO1; am I correct?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  This quotation would be found at page 69 of your

          affidavit of evidence-in-chief, I believe.  If you look

          at page 69 and page 70, the figure before GST is

          $59,300, that must be VO1 that you were referring to,

          right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Let's see if it's been accepted.

              At page 70, the bottom left-hand corner, above The

          Pump Room's stamp company stamp, do you see the word

          "approved"?

      A.  I do, yes.

      Q.  So that's been accepted, hasn't it?

      A.  It's been accepted by The Pump Room, yes.  As I said

          earlier, I would have expected it to actually have gone

 

12:06     through the project manager.

      Q.  It's accepted by the client -- that is the company chop,

          isn't it?

      A.  It is, yes.

      Q.  "Yes" or "no"?

      A.  I said "yes".

      Q.  VO2, item number 3, "Alterations and additions for the

          gas works", the price is $26,850, that must be at pages

          71 and 72 of your affidavit of evidence-in-chief, isn't

          it?

      A.  Can you repeat the pages, please?

      Q.  Pages 71 and 72 of your affidavit of evidence-in-chief.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Let's look at the top centre portion of the page.

      A.  On page 71?

      Q.  Page 72.  That is the signature of Ms Pauline Graham,

          isn't it?

      A.  Honestly, the signature, I don't know.

      Q.  Let me make it easier.  Can I draw your attention to

          page 80 of your own affidavit of evidence-in-chief.

      A.  Page 80, yes.

      Q.  That's the tax invoice for Mason Works combining

          variation order 1, variation order 2, variation order 3

          and variation order 4 in quotation 1615 (R1)/06.  Do you

          see a column that says "Paid", a chop?

 

12:08 A.  I see a chop, yes, it says "Paid".  But going back to

          page 71, it wasn't confirmed.

      Q.  That's because 71 has not been proceeded with.  It's not

          the same figure, even.

      A.  I don't know, 71 is talking about variation number 2.

      Q.  Well, the actual variation number 2, if you look at the

          figure at page 72, the figure matches your item 3, VO2,

          26,850; am I right?

      A.  Page 1 and page 2 are the from the same document.

      Q.  How can they be the same if the prices are not the same?

      A.  No, on page 71, the figure of 28,192.50 is including

          GST, so if you deduct GST it becomes 26,850, which is

          the figure referred to on page 52.

      Q.  Let me make it easier for you.

      A.  No, I have not finished.  And then 26,850 is the figure

          at page 80, which is the tax invoice that you referred

          me to.  But at page 71 the quotation was not accepted.

      Q.  Okay.  That's probably because -- as you were

          complaining of incomplete documentation yesterday,

          perhaps it would be easier if I refer you to the

          affidavit of evidence-in-chief of Mr Lee Ka Ming, the

          2st defendant's bundle of AEICs, the thick one.

              Pages 218 to 219.  You compare that with your own

          copy, this time around, they are item for item the same,

          aren't they?

 

12:12 A.  Yes.

      Q.  It's VO2 of Q1615(R1)/06-PumpRoom-WL, variation order 2,

          do you agree?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  If you turn to page 219, you will see that every single

          item has been signed off, signed against by Fred -- Fred

          Wong, I'm sure, that's the project manager -- and at the

          bottom of it is the company stamp of The Pump Room Pte

          Ltd; am I correct?

      A.  Correct, yes.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, I didn't want to interrupt, sorry.

          Questions like this will pose a problem for me in

          re-examination, because a loaded question, ie "Fred Wong

          is the project manager ..."  I would appreciate -- my

          learned friend knows that is in issue, so -- unless he

          is asking this witness whether Fred Wong was the project

          manager, then I have no objection.

      MR ONG:  I don't understand the objection.

      MR VIJAY:  What I'm saying is ask your question but please

          do not put controversial issues as part of the evidence,

          so I am forced to stand up and object.

      MR ONG:  I am sorry, I don't know which part you are

          referring to.

      MR VIJAY:  The point is that your question included the fact

          this has been approved by Fred Wong, the project

 

12:13     manager, so I am saying --

      COURT:  Yes, he just wants you to refer to Fred Wong,

          without --

      MR VIJAY:  Without putting the adjective, yes, thank you,

          your Honour.

      MR ONG:  I see.

              Okay, now that I understand.  Mr Crispin, has VO2

          been accepted by The Pump Room Pte Ltd?

      A.  In this affidavit, yes.  I have not seen this

          previously.

      Q.  Since we are at this page 219 -- are you at page 219 of

          the 2nd defendant's bundle of affidavit -- that's

          variation order 3, isn't it?  Let's see if it matches,

          additions and upgrading?

      A.  219?

      Q.  Sorry, 220.  That's VO3, right?

      A.  220 is VO3, yes.

      Q.  And it matches your description, "additions and

          upgrading for electrical works"; right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  There's a signature, on items 1.0 to 1.18; am I correct?

      A.  1.0 to 1.18, yes, there is a signature.  I assume it

          means collectively, but it just says item 1.0 to 1.18,

          it doesn't actually make it --

      Q.  Let's not get ahead of ourselves, let's go page by page.

 

12:15     Page 221, item 2.0, "Additional high amp power points &

          other", there we see a signature and "(Item 2.1 to

          2.9)", right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Finally, we come to page 222.  After 2.9, do you see the

          centre of the page, the company stamp of The Pump Room

          Pte Ltd?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Two signatures on top?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  So VO3 has been accepted, hasn't it?

      A.  Yes, I agree.

      Q.  VO4, the next page, 223.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Title "Additional Mechanical Ventilation Works"; do you

          see that?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Do you see the signature and "(Item 1.0 to 16.0)"?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Let's go to the next page, 224.  It ends at item 16,

          right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  After that you see the Pump Room's chop, two signatures?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  So VO4 has also been accepted, hasn't it?

 

12:17 A.  Yes.

      Q.  We are halfway there.  I'm sorry to trouble you, can you

          refer back to your own affidavit, page 43.

      A.  Page 43, yes.

      Q.  We have here "Demolition works and new brick walls for

          The Pump Room at Block B Clarke Quay", does that

          correspond to your item number 6?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  $45,300 is that right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  The bottom right-hand corner of the page, "Pump Room Pte

          Ltd.  Authorised signatory and company stamp", correct?

      A.  That's what it says, yes.  This one wasn't chopped.

      Q.  Has it been accepted?

      A.  Well, I assume it's been accepted, yes.  It wasn't

          chopped.

      Q.  Item 7 is found in page 47 of your affidavit of

          evidence-in-chief; am I correct?

      A.  Sorry, at page?

      Q.  Page 47.

      A.  Yes, correct.

      Q.  For this one I think you have to look at page 256 of the

          2nd defendant's bundle of affidavits -- have you got it?

      A.  Page 256, yes.

      Q.  This is a quotation for demolition of existing party

 

12:20     wall and erection of new cool room wall.  There is

          a signature at the bottom left-hand side, right?

      A.  Excuse me, the bottom of page 256, I can see somebody's

          signature, yes.

      Q.  I'm so sorry, Mr Crispin, I found it better at your own

          affidavit, page 48.  We are looking at the same

          quotation, I assure you.  Pages 47 and 48, they are

          a continuation, really -- am I correct -- the subject

          matter is "Demolition of existing party wall and

          erection of new cold room wall."

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  So at the bottom left-hand corner of page 47 there is

          a signature, at the bottom right-hand corner of page 48,

          the continuation sheet, you have a company stamp and

          Mr William Graham's signature, don't you?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  So item 7 has been accepted by the client, hasn't it?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  We now come to item 8 of your valuation at page 160.

          I was in a quandary for a while because your item 8 says

          no quotation so I was rather hard put to do my digging.

          But eureka, I found it at page 259 of that thick bundle

          that you have, of the 2nd defendant's affidavit.

      A.  Correct, yes.

      Q.  Because your item says, "site preparation and works at

 

12:23     unit 10 for brewery installation", it's actually quoted

          as site preparation and access path, and the item before

          GST found at page 262, comes up to exactly 21,350;

          correct?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  So if you were to go back to page 259 for it, there is

          confirmation by Mr William Graham's signature, isn't

          there?

      A.  I mean, it's signed again, not chopped.

      Q.  So has it been accepted?

      A.  I assume so, yes, not particularly well, but it has.

      Q.  Okay.  Now we have come back to the infamous item 9 of

          your valuation.  I have turned my client's premises

          upside down but I can't find it.  Can you help us,

          Mr Crispin?

      A.  Well, I have not had a opportunity yet to go to the

          plaintiff's documents.  As I said yesterday I passed all

          the documents back.

      Q.  I have two problems on this then, Mr Crispin.  Firstly,

          are my clients charging $80,000 for something that we

          can't see?  Are they?

      A.  Well, I agree it remains a mystery at present because

          I have not been able to find the document.

      Q.  Following on from that mystery, you have valued

          something that my clients have no evidence of having

 

12:25     charged The Pump Room at $10,000.  What did you value,

          Mr Crispin?

      A.  I valued -- as I said yesterday, I remember seeing

          a document for structural works at the floor of the

          brewery and I saw that document within the pile of

          documents that I borrowed from the plaintiff at the

          beginning of when I started looking through the

          documentation.  As I also said, I have not had a chance

          to go back through it again, but my understanding was

          that it was for flooring works and flooring works are

          really covered elsewhere.

      Q.  Let me take stock, Mr Crispin.

      A.  Sorry?

      Q.  Let me take stock, I have not seen this quotation, the

          2nd defendant has not seen this quotation -- am I right?

          It's not in evidence before this court; am I right?

      A.  Well, I have not gone through all the documents but I'm

          willing to accept that.

      Q.  Humour me.  If I asked around the room, "Has anyone else

          seen this document?"  Apparently not, wouldn't you

          agree?

      A.  Apparently not, as you say, yes.

      Q.  May I invite you to take this item off your valuation.

      A.  Well, if it can't be found, I have no objection.

      Q.  On behalf of Mr Sreenivasan I'll thank you for reducing

 

12:27     his client's liability by $70,000?

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Alleged liability, please.

      MR ONG:  Item 10, the controversial document, page 98 of

          your own AEIC, Mr Crispin.  That's for the proposed

          construction of brew house and cold room for The Pump

          Room at Clarke Quay; am I right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Confirmation by company stamp, Mr William Graham's

          signature; am I right?

      A.  Yes, correct.

      Q.  Has it been accepted by the client?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  There we go.

              Item 11, page 108 of your own affidavit of

          evidence-in-chief -- do you have it?

      A.  108.

      Q.  And page 109, continuing, the sum a quoted as 12,453

          which is before GST; that's found in page 109 of your

          affidavit.  So the covering sheet at page 108, bottom

          right-hand side corner, The Pump Room's company stamp,

          William Graham's signature; am I right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  So it's been accepted?

      A.  Well --

      Q.  Yes?

 

12:29 A.  You have been using the word "accepted" -- I notice it

          uses the word "confirmation", so I assume "confirmation"

          means accepted.

      Q.  I'm just asking you, "yes" or "no", has it been

          accepted?

      A.  Well, it's been confirmed by The Pump Room to be

          strictly accurate.

      Q.  Has it been accepted?

      A.  Well, as far as I can see, it's been accepted by The

          Pump Room, who is the client but who is not the project

          manager and, as I said earlier, I would have expected it

          to have been approved by the project manager.

      Q.  Has it been accepted by The Pump Room Pte Ltd?

      A.  It has, yes.

      Q.  Thank you.  Item number 1 -- I'm sorry, I don't think

          I need to deal with it.

              Item number 13, finally -- I beg your pardon, let me

          confer with my client. (Pause.)

              It seems we can't find the quotation either.

      A.  Sorry, which?

      Q.  It seems it has taken on the same air as the $80,000.

      A.  Sorry, what are you referring to?

      Q.  Well, I mean where is your source document for saying

          that my clients have charged $19,952?

      A.  Variation number 3.  Variation number 3, I think there

 

12:32     was more than one variation number 3.

      Q.  Okay, I think I have found it at page 119 of your

          affidavit -- 118 to 119 -- sorry, 117, yes.

      A.  I think that there was a variation number 3 and then it

          was superseded by another variation number 3.

      Q.  At 119, it is the closest my client could find to fit

          your report of additional electrical work, and

          unfortunately, the sum quoted in this variation order 3

          was $14,738, so that doesn't quite match your $19,952.

      A.  As I said, there were two variation number 3s.

      Q.  I have kind of a wacky explanation, though, Mr Crispin,

          your quotation of $19,952, when one deducts it from the

          $14,738 that is in my variation order 3, one comes up

          with $5,000.  That comes to be your valuation.

      A.  I mean, to clarify, there were two variation number 3s.

          I am referring to page 118, but there was a superseded

          variation number 3.

      Q.  So the continuation sheet to 118 actually says that the

          quoted sum is $14,738 -- that's not quite 19,952, is it?

      A.  No, I agree.  I agree.  But I am saying that there was

          an earlier variation number 3.

      Q.  Could you find it for us in your --

      A.  I'm trying to.  I know it existed because it's referred

          to at page 118.

      Q.  You are the only one in this room who knew the $80,000

 

12:35     quotation existed.

      A.  No, no, if you look at page 118, it says at the top,

          "This quotation supersedes our previous VO3 quote dated

          January 2007."

      Q.  Well, the superseded quote obviously has not been

          exhibited, so this 118 continues on to 119, that's the

          continuation sheet.  The items, even the numerical

          sequence match.  You see, 118 actually goes from items 1

          to 8, 119 continues with item number 9.

      A.  Yes, that I agree.  I'm just saying that there was an

          earlier variation number 3.  (Pause.)

      Q.  Perhaps if I can suggest some perspective to this --

          I mean, at the end of the day, out of 13 items we have

          already accounted for 12 of them, shall we just reserve

          this point and look at the overall picture.

              Items 2 to 12 of your valuation report, less item 9,

          which has been generously withdrawn, are all quotations

          accepted by The Pump Room; am I correct?

      A.  Okay, just to clarify, item 12 wasn't, and then an

          earlier one in my affidavit, in my documentation wasn't

          but in the 2nd defendant's affidavit was.

      Q.  Well, there's no issue because item 12, your valuation

          and the variation work, according to your report,

          matches dollar for dollar.

      A.  Yes, but I am just highlighting it because you didn't

 

12:40     highlight it.

      Q.  So have they been accepted by the client -- they must

          be?

      A.  Well, the work was done although it wasn't accepted.

      Q.  Now you say it's not accepted?

      A.  No, I said the works was done although it wasn't

          accepted because at page 129 the quotation wasn't

          accepted, it wasn't signed and chopped.  (Pause.)

      Q.  Okay, let me make it easier then.  Items 2 to 11 of your

          valuation report, less item 9 that has been withdrawn,

          have all been accepted by your clients.

      A.  I am sorry, can you repeat that, please?

      Q.  We have taken you through each and every one of those

          items, you have confirmed that they have been accepted

          by your client -- yes?

      A.  Correct.  You didn't actually repeat the question,

          I asked you to repeat the question.

      Q.  So is it a "yes" or "no"?

      A.  Maybe you can say it again, please.

      Q.  Have the quotations in items 2 right down to item 11,

          except for item 9, been accepted by The Pump Room

          Pte Ltd?

      A.  Okay, down to item 11, you said?

      Q.  Yes.

      A.  Correct.  What I also said was that one of the copies in

 

12:42     my affidavit is not accepted, although I see it is

          signed and chopped --

      Q.  So have they been accepted?

      A.  Yes, I agree.

      Q.  Right.

              Item 12, since the amount claimed and the valuation

          matches, we are in agreement, aren't we?

      A.  Agreement of what?

      Q.  That the valuation for the works and the quotation for

          the work are in order?

      A.  We are in agreement regarding the valuation, in other

          words the cost of the work, but it wasn't signed and

          chopped.

      Q.  I am not asking about signing and chopping here, I'm

          asking whether they are in agreement -- are they the

          same?

      A.  Regarding the figures, yes.

      Q.  Right, because this is a valuation report, isn't it?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  We are only in issue when the figures are different --

          right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  So, are the figures the same?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Do we have issues -- do we have differences in opinion?

 

12:43 A.  My only point was that it wasn't signed and chopped, but

          other than that, no.

      Q.  Are we in agreement that the valuation and the quotation

          are dollar for dollar the same; "yes" or "no"?

      A.  Yes, correct.

      Q.  Mr Crispin, let me go to the CPG rates for the

          structured steel again.  Do you agree that based on

          CPG's schedule of rates for structured steelworks and

          materials, at page 430 of the 2nd defendant's bundle of

          documents, under items 1.1A and B, "solid section" and

          "hollow section", the CPG chartered quantity surveyors

          value the materials and labour for mild steel members

          used in structural steelwork and metalwork, BS5950 grade

          S275, is $3.50 per kilogram?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  You have taken the cost of materials from the section of

          the same booklet and applied your valuation of labour

          to -- I think you started with $1.20 as the base price

          for the materials in supply and delivery, you added a

          30 cents component on top of that for the labour; is

          that correct?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  So your $1.50 comprises about 30 cents for the labour?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  At $3.50 per kilogram at CPG's rate, they are taking the

 

12:47     same computation as you, aren't they, that the cost of

          material supply and deliver was $1.20 per kilogram?

      A.  Sorry, for the $3.50?

      Q.  Yes, their $3.50 is made up actually of two components,

          materials and labour, excluding supply and delivery,

          right?  You have agreed with us that the $1.20 was

          purely for the materials supply and delivery, so the

          difference between $1.20 and $3.50 makes up their labour

          component as being $2.30; am I right?

      A.  Let me just check, just give me a moment, please.

              The $3.50 includes the cost the material plus --

      Q.  Labour.  And labour, right?  And the labour has been --

      A.  You are answering the question for me.

              The $3.50 includes the cost of material and other

          items which were --

      Q.  Set out in the preamble.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  In that entire book.

      A.  In the preamble in the photocopy that I was --

      Q.  And your $1.20 was taken from the very same book as

          being only the cost of the materials from supply and

          delivery to site --

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  -- right?  So it stands to reason that this very same

          book must have taken the $3.50, deducted the $1.20 for

 

12:49     supply and delivery, to make up all the other components

          of the labour, isn't it?

      A.  No, you can't make that assumption.  You have to refer

          back to the CPG book.

      Q.  Okay, tell me where in the CPG book does it tell us not

          to make that assumption?

      A.  That's what I am going to explain.  If you refer back --

      Q.  No, you don't have to explain, Mr Crispin, tell me where

          in the CPG booklet -- you have it all before you, it has

          been admitted in evidence, show us why it shouldn't be

          applied that way?

      A.  That's what I am attempting to do so but you must let me

          speak and I need to go one step at a time to explain.

          I wanted to refer back to the other structural steel

          section first, because that will make it a little bit

          clearer.  I think that section was under section (d).

      COURT:  Why don't you take your time and look for it and we

          will adjourn for lunch.  2.30 pm.

      (12.50 pm)

                       (The luncheon adjournment)

      (2.35 pm)

      COURT:  Yes.

      MR ONG:  Mr Crispin, if you will bear with me I will try to

          wrap up everything and finish as soon as possible.

          There are just a few final points.

 

14:36         Is it fair to say that where we just adjourned, your

          valuation of the price of structured steel beams and

          labour is $1.50 per kilogram, whereas the CPG's fixed

          schedule of rates, materials and labour included, is

          $3.50 per kilogram -- is it fair to say?

      A.  Okay, I think what you asked me beforehand was firstly

          to confirm the $1.50, and then the other figure in the

          CPG was the $3.50.

      Q.  Both these figures are talking about the price of the

          materials with labour added on to it; is that a correct

          statement?

      A.  Both figures include labour, yes, amongst other things

          to more or less degrees, and then you were asking me --

      Q.  That's all I was asking you.

      A.  No, it wasn't.

      Q.  For now this is all I'm asking you.

      A.  No, I was asked -- you were asking me regarding the

          $3.50 less $1 --

      Q.  Mr Crispin, that's not my question now.

      COURT:  All right, proceed.

      MR ONG:  Okay, I'm just asking you, right now, is there

          a range of opinion between your $1.50 and CPG's $3.50?

      A.  Sorry, a range of opinion -- what do you mean?

      Q.  That means that there is a range between -- a difference

          of opinion between your $1.50, materials and labour, and

 

14:38     CPG's $3.50, materials and labour?

      A.  Well, in fact, what I was saying is that they are really

          referring to two different things.  The $3.50 figure is

          a -- firstly it's all-encompassing figure because it

          includes materials and labour and it includes whatever

          is in the preambles which is listed out and that has

          given a --

      Q.  Okay, let's read the preamble then.

      A.  I was going to read it but ...

      Q.  No, please, you see, the trouble, Mr Crispin, I'm asking

          you for a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

      A.  I'm trying to explain my answer and you are interrupting

          me.

      Q.  Can we agree to answer "yes" or "no" first before we go

          to explanations?

      A.  Okay, then ask me a "yes" or "no" question and then

          I will give my explanation.

      Q.  I'm asking, isn't your materials and labour $1.50 per

          kilogram for steel and CPG's materials and labour for

          steel is $3.50 -- is that "yes" or "no"?

      A.  Sorry, what was the question part?

      Q.  Is your price, your valuation of the structured steel,

          the materials and labour, $1.50 per kilogram?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Isn't CPG's rate for materials and labour $3.50 per

 

14:39     kilogram?

      A.  CPG's materials --

      Q.  Fixed schedule of rates.

      A.  It's materials, labour, profit, et cetera, because it's

          also included items in the preamble.

      Q.  Where does it say "profit" in the preamble?

      A.  Now I am referring to the CPG document in its entirety

          and I'm referring to page -- okay, it's at the beginning

          of section (e), I think page 1, I can't see the number

          but I think it's page 1, but I am looking at the

          preambles, page E1, and then on the right-hand column it

          says, halfway down the page:

              "Unless otherwise stated, the following shall be

          deemed to be included with all items ..."

              So it concludes item (a) which is the labour and

          which has been referred to.

      Q.  I'm asking you where does it say "profit"?

      A.  I am going read down to that.  Other items, and then

          down to item (j), it says, "Establishment charges

          overhead charges, preliminaries and profit."

      Q.  Okay, does it say that if we eliminate profit then these

          rates won't apply?

      A.  No, it doesn't say that.

      Q.  So back to my question: you are saying $1.50 materials

          and labour, CPG is saying $3.50 materials and labour;

 

14:41     correct?

      A.  No, because the $3.50 is referred to in the schedules of

          rates which includes the items in the preambles, which

          includes, amongst other things, establishment charges,

          overhead charges, preliminaries and profit.

      COURT:  Is it valid to include all this?

      A.  Sorry, is it.

      COURT:  Is it proper to include all this?

      A.  Well, that's what is referred to in the preambles and it

          does say "unless otherwise stated, the following shall

          be deemed to be included with all items".

      COURT:  Did you include all these items somewhere else?

      A.  Well, if they are to be included elsewhere, then you

          wouldn't use the $3.50 figure, but I'm saying that this

          $3.50 figure --

      COURT:  What is your figure using all this?

      A.  My figure of $1.50 is just for materials and labour,

          then there's additional costs over and above that.

      COURT:  So what is your total, based upon their method of

          calculation?

      A.  I've actually split it up, so I have said that the

          materials and labour only is the --

      COURT:  Can you find out what is the figure?

      A.  The figure I was referring to is the $1.50 multiplied by

          the 18,500 --

 

14:43 MR ONG:  Mr Crispin, we are talking about materials and

          labour, that's all, we're not talking about the 28,000

          tonnes anymore.

      A.  Yes, so materials and labour is purely the $1.50 figure.

      Q.  And you are saying CPG is dead wrong?

      A.  No, I am not saying that.

      Q.  If you are not saying that then just --

      A.  No, let me say --

      Q.  -- simply answer "yes" or "no" first or I'm going to ask

          the judge to ask you for the answer.

      A.  It's not a question of right or wrong, it is a question

          of which figure is specific and which figure is general.

      COURT:  Let me put it this way: do you find fault with the

          things that are in the other person's figure, leave

          aside the figure, just the things that were taken into

          account before they came to --

      A.  The preambles, et cetera?  The preambles are acceptable;

          the items, I have no issue with.

      COURT:  Fine.  So if you find the preambles acceptable, why

          didn't you take all those things into account?

      A.  No, I have taken those into account separately --

      COURT:  Fine, if you have taken all that into account can

          you let us have the final figure.  They put it as $3.50;

          I know you put it elsewhere, but what is your final

          figure?  If you are coming back to 1.50 then stand by

 

14:44     it.

      A.  I stand by that figure but I have also included

          preliminaries as a separate figure, which is $1,200.

      COURT:  For the last time, if the other side is $3.50, what

          is your figure, taking into account everything they have

          taken into account unless you say they have taken into

          account things that should not have been taken into

          account?

      A.  Okay, if it's an all-encompassing figure for everything,

          to compare to the $3.50, it would be $2.16 per kilogram.

      MR ONG:  So now your final figure is $2.16 per kilogram

          because materials and labour --

      A.  Now I'm including preliminaries --

      Q.  Right, so you have --

      COURT:  You did not include this?

      A.  Sorry?

      COURT:  Previously you did not include this?

      A.  The previous figure of $1.50 is purely materials and

          labour.

      COURT:  So in your conclusion about the excess of more than

          half a million paid, how does this new figure of yours

          affect that figure?

      A.  No, no, what I'm being asked to do is really to

          represent my figures in a different format, and my

          figure --

 

14:46 COURT:  So it makes no difference?

      A.  No, because the $1.50 figure was just for supply and

          delivery; the $1.50 figure is for supply, delivery and

          labour.

      COURT:  And labour was in your report?

      A.  Yes, labour was a separate figure; now I have added --

          it's included.

      COURT:  Fine, now you have gone past $2?

      A.  Now I am adding in preliminaries.  Preliminaries, I had

          actually allowed $1,200 for.

      COURT:  Everything?

      A.  But I think I had better just re-write it because that

          figure is not quite correct.

      COURT:  Did you give $1,000-over for everything in the --

      A.  For the preliminaries, for the brew house and cold room,

          I gave a figure of $1,200.

      COURT:  But now you have increased it by 50 cents?

      A.  I think maybe I can just recalculate it, if you can give

          me a few minutes.

      MR ONG:  Just to check, so you are not keen on $2.16

          anymore?

      A.  Just give me a few minutes to do it properly.

      Q.  Just let me know "yes" or "no" first.

      A.  No.

      Q.  No, no more 2.16?

 

14:47 A.  No, correct.  Let me do it properly and I will let you

          know.  (Pause.)

      Q.  Yes?  What's the magic figure, Mr Crispin?

      A.  I wouldn't describe it as magic but it's $1.56 per

          kilogram and that includes materials, delivery and

          labour.

      Q.  So let me get you right, Mr Crispin, it was $1.50 to

          $2.16 and now it's $1.56; is that correct?

      A.  No, because --

      Q.  "Yes" or "no"?

      A.  No, it's not because I told you I corrected my figure

          just now, and also the $1.56 now includes preliminaries.

      Q.  What was the figure before you corrected -- wasn't it

          $2.16?  I am sorry, Mr Crispin, I have to be firm on

          this point.

      A.  No, that's okay, I'm simply telling you I wanted more

          time to do it accurately which is what I have done.  So

          the figure for materials, delivery, labour and including

          preliminaries is $1.56 per kilogram.

      COURT:  How did you get $2.16 just now?

      A.  No, that was my mistake, but now I have written it out

          quite clearly.

      MR ONG:  You are telling the court that yesterday it was

          $1.20, that was a mistake; and it was $1.50 and that is

          also a mistake?

 

14:50 A.  No, no, the figure of $1.20 is for materials and

          delivery; the figure of $1.50 is for materials, delivery

          and labour; the figure of $1.56 is for materials,

          delivery, labour and preliminaries.

      COURT:  There is a difference of almost $2 between you and

          the other?

      A.  Yes, correct.  And as I've said before, the figure of

          $3.50 is a general figure; the figure of $1.20 and then

          leading on to $1.50 and $1.56 is a specific figure.

          It's specific because it relates to particular steel

          dimensions; the $3.50 figure does not refer to any

          particular dimensions.

      COURT:  How do you know?

      A.  Because it says.  If you refer to the $3.50 figure it's

          just referring to mild steel members in general terms,

          but then, in the CPG publication, which is what

          I referred to at page D29, it's giving specific supply

          and delivery figures for different sizes of structural

          beams or columns.

      COURT:  Please carry on.

      MR ONG:  Can I make it easier for you, Mr Crispin, wouldn't

          it be fairer to say there is a price range from

          $1.50 per kilogram to $3.50 per kilogram for steel,

          materials and labour, but when you were to take into

          account the considerations for the particular project in

 

14:53     The Pump Room, you decided to arrive at the figure now

          of $1.56 per kg -- is that a fair characterisation of

          your explanation?

      A.  Well, I think it's an oversimplification.  It's not --

      Q.  If it's an oversimplification then just say it's not

          a fair characterisation.  Let me come to something

          that's fair.  I will wait all day until you come up with

          up with a fair characterisation to explain this

          difference.

      A.  The fair characterisation is very simple, it's to refer

          to page D29 of the CPG document and to look under the

          heading of "Column Sections" and "Universal Beam

          sections" and then to look at the particular dimensions

          for structural steel members and to see that there is

          a particular figure for supply and delivery in relation

          to a dimension of steel.  If one refers to the $3.50

          figure, albeit an all-encompassing figure, it doesn't

          refer specifically to any size or type of steel member,

          because it includes a whole mixture, including girders,

          roof trusses, purlin, cleats and brackets, so it's

          obviously a general figure, whereas page D29 is

          a specific figure.  And given the choice between the

          two, obviously I should use the one that is specific.

      Q.  Before you got to the one that's specific, we were

          actually talking about the general, Mr Crispin, so

 

14:54     I need you to stick to my questions.

              Let's try again.  As close as I understand it, the

          only compass point I have from you is that $1.20 per

          kilogram is the price of the materials plus supply and

          delivery; am I correct?

      A.  No, because that's the price for a specific dimension of

          steel.

      Q.  I'm back to your $1.20 for materials, I have always been

          at the same question, Mr Crispin, materials and labour,

          materials and labour -- am I correct?  Why are you going

          to many other areas that I have not been to?

              I am going to ask the question again.  I hope I can

          really move on with this.  I need your help, Mr Crispin.

              Shall we start with $1.20 cost of material?

      A.  Okay.

      Q.  You are fine with that, right, that's found in page D29?

          That was your basis all along, that the cost of

          materials in this particular project was $1.20 per

          kilogram.  We are at the same starting point,right?

      A.  Correct, yes.

      Q.  Now I'm still going back to the added labour that you --

          your professional opinion -- would bring us to, so

          perhaps let me take you now to page E6 of the CPG guide

          and work on your assumption.

      A.  I'm at page E6, yes.

 

14:57 Q.  You can't find E6?

      A.  No, I am here, I'm waiting.

      Q.  9.2, the rates.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  So we understand from the general preamble that now, in

          the fixed schedule of rates, we are talking about

          materials and labour, right, so items 9.2(a), (b), (c),

          (d), (e) and (f) are all items of labour, aren't they,

          for steel?

      A.  Yes, I mean under the preambles we're talking about

          materials, labour and other things.

      Q.  Correct.  I want to go to all the materials and other

          things and get your expert view on this, you see?  So we

          start with the baseline, $1.20, materials, supply

          delivery, no labour at all -- at all -- fair?

      A.  Okay, yes.

      Q.  So, Mr Crispin, how would you price in purely labour in

          rolling margin -- you add -- how much would you add on

          to your $1.20?

      A.  Well, I wouldn't price it on that basis, I'm afraid, so

          I can't give you an answer, because I don't think that

          that's the way to price it.

      Q.  Okay, but you agreed with us yesterday that you made

          your pricing based on item (c) and item (d) in The Pump

          Room project, isn't it?

 

14:58 A.  Yes.  But when I --

      Q.  "Yes" or "no" first, please, please, please.

      A.  Okay, my --

      Q.  "Yes" or "no"?

      A.  Then, sorry, maybe you can repeat the question, please.

      Q.  Yesterday, before this court, you were bargaining with

          Mr Sreenivasan that your labour, when you factored in

          your computation of the materials and labour for The

          Pump Room project, was only inclusive of items (c) and

          (d), that was how you arrived at your $1.50 per

          kilogram, isn't it?   "Yes" or "no"?

      A.  Actually I can't remember which items specifically were

          included yesterday because I remember there was

          reference to the two sections of preambles.

      COURT:  You are the expert, Mr Crispin.

      A.  Yes.

      COURT:  You must know what you were talking about yesterday.

      A.  I know what I'm talking about.

      COURT:  Then now you say you can't remember?

      A.  No, because there's various items -- in simple terms I'm

          talking purely about labour.  That's my understanding,

          that's my understanding of what we are referring to.

      MR ONG:  Yes, I am asking you to price purely labour.  I am

          not talking about anything else.  I just want to know

          your expert opinion compared against CPG?

 

15:00 A.  Yes, but as a general rate, you cannot price labour in

          on this basis, there is no logic to it.

      COURT:  So what is your price then?

      A.  The way I priced it was specifically for the cold room

          and pump room.

      COURT:  And what was your basis for pricing it?

      A.  My figure and I assume we are going to the $1.50.

      COURT:  Let me make it clear.  You can use any figure --

      MR ONG:  It's $1.56 now?

      COURT:  -- but you have to justify your figure.

      A.  I'm happy to do that.

      COURT:  Fine.

      A.  But firstly I'm saying, with the schedule of rates, you

          cannot really mix labour and materials together under

          all circumstances.  You have to look at specific

          circumstances, so in the case of the pump room

          structure, I worked out my figure on the basis of $1.20

          per kilogram multiplied by a certain mass, I then added

          specifically a labour cost for the construction of that

          metal structure, and adding those two figures

          together --

      COURT:  I know that, but what is your basis for arriving at

          that figure for labour?

      A.  Okay, the basis --

      COURT:  You are not in court to just say, "I chose this

 

15:01     figure", you have to explain how --

      A.  Yes.

      COURT:  -- you got that figure and that's what we are all

          waiting to hear from you.

      A.  I have assessed the labour figure on how long I think it

          will take to construct that structure, so I've made my

          assessment of how long I think it takes to construct --

      COURT:  So have you shown how long it will take in your

          report?

      A.  In my report, no.  In my workings, yes.  My figure,

          actually, for the --

      COURT:  Your workings are not before the court?

      A.  No.

      COURT:  So can you please explain?

      A.  Yes.  Do you want me to write it out?

      COURT:  Mr Vijay, you have an expert witness, he has not got

          the workings for us, he has just given me his

          conclusions.  It is trite that experts' conclusions must

          be justified by his calculations, et cetera.  Without

          that, how can they cross-examine?

      MR VIJAY:  Perhaps the witness can explain.

              Explain your basis in calculation, not write it out.

      A.  Okay.

      COURT:  Well, they don't know how you calculated, how long

          it would take to build, then you are just plucking the

 

15:03     figure from the air.

      A.  No, I am not doing that.  My calculation is based on the

          figure of $8,400 for labour.

      COURT:  It's not the figure which is important now, it's how

          you reached the figure.

      A.  Well, it's broken down into certain elements, so that's

          why I'm saying why don't I write it out and then I just

          explain it.

      COURT:  All right.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, if I may be of assistance.

          The normal measure of units of labour will be man days,

          so if the witness can say how many man days --

      COURT:  How many people are involved?

      MR SREENIVASAN:  How many man days -- it can be 20 people

          for 10 days, what per cent for --

      A.  That's what I was going to do.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Perhaps you can tell his Honour how many

          man days.

      A.  Let me write it out because there's more than --

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Perhaps you can tell his Honour how many

          man days?

      A.  No, no, let me write it out because it's not just one

          type of worker.  I am assuming two different types of

          worker; I am assuming a skilled worker and a labourer.

      COURT:  Yes, you just -- how long will you take, roughly?

 

15:04 A.  I think it would take approximately 10 days, 10 working

          days.

      COURT:  No, how long will it take to you write it?

      A.  Two or three minutes.  (Pause.)

      MR ONG:  All right, how many man days are we at?

      A.  I am saying 10 working days, or 10 man days, but I'm

          using two different types of labour; I am saying you

          need some skilled labour and some labourers.  For the

          skilled labour I am saying that they are $200 per day;

          in other words one skilled labourer is $200 a day and

          I'm using two skilled labourers, and for 10 days.

              In addition, I am saying you need labourers at the

          same time.  The labourers I am pricing at $100 per day

          but I am saying you need four of them for the same

          10 days, and then you need some cleaning up at the end,

          which I have allowed two labourers two days to do.  So

          that is the labour cost which then I used in order to

          get my $1.50 per kilogram for materials plus labour.

      COURT:  Where do you get your figure for the amount for

          skilled labourer?

      A.  Well, there are various market rates.  There are base

          rates in the CPG guidelines but they don't include

          extras like CPF insurance, so I'm taking what I consider

          are market rates.

      COURT:  So you are saying if you go out to the market today

 

15:08     and you want to hire a skilled labourer you pay him this

          figure?

      A.  Well, I mean two years ago, at the time when the work

          was carried out.

      COURT:  Yes, yes, I am referring to that.

      A.  Yes, correct.

      COURT:  Then if a contractor provides it, does he include

          a profit margin?

      A.  Yes, I am including profit, CPF, whatever it may be

          within those figures.

      COURT:  Do you know how much would be paid to the skilled

          labourer, then, if you include profit, et cetera --

          what's your percentage of profit?

      A.  Well, I think that whether it's the skilled labourer or

          the labourer, they would probably get about 60 per cent

          of those figures -- actually themselves.

      COURT:  Thank you.

      MR ONG:  Let me simplify this, Mr Crispin, the figures are

          all beyond me now.  Is it fair to say another quantity

          surveyor may reasonably have a slightly different rate

          from yours?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And he wouldn't be wrong, am I right?  I mean, it

          wouldn't be wrong for him to have a slightly different

          rate from yours?

 

15:10 A.  I agree, yes.

      Q.  So there would be a range within which a reasonable

          expert surveyor may differ in the price per kilogram for

          materials and labour; is that fair?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  All right.  That was the question I was reaching for,

          your Honour.

              Did Mr Vijay inform you that where there is a range

          of different opinions, you must inform the court?

      MR VIJAY:  I object to this question.  What is the basis of

          involving me in your questioning?  I have nothing to do

          with this.  You question his report and his findings;

          leave me out of it.

      COURT:  Rephrase your question.

      MR ONG:  Yes, your Honour.

              Do you agree that an expert's duty to the court

          should be to inform the court that there is a range of

          different opinions as to pricing; "yes" or "no"?

      A.  No, I don't think so.

      COURT:  You think so?

      A.  No, I said --

      MR ONG:  He says no, your Honour.

      A.  -- I don't think so.

      COURT:  You don't think so?

      A.  No, because I would have thought that it's understood

 

15:12     that different experts can always have different views.

      COURT:  No, but his point is if there is a range of opinion

          as to what it should be, you should have stated, "There

          is a range of opinion but in my view ...", that's what

          he's saying.

      A.  Well, there might be a range of opinion on the labour

          elements, there shouldn't be a range of opinion on the

          material element.

      COURT:  All right.

      MR ONG:  I think I will move on, your Honour.

      COURT:  Yes.  Make your submissions.

      MR ONG:  Mr Crispin, I am just going to suggest to you that

          in making your valuations in your report -- items 1

          to 13, pages 159 to 161 of your affidavit -- you relied

          mainly on Mr Graham's assurance in your assumption B

          that the majority of quotations were not accepted by the

          client; do you agree or disagree?

      A.  I disagree.

      Q.  I further put it to you that such an assumption is now

          demonstrated to be incorrect; do you agree?

      A.  Sorry, I'm just trying to understand your question.

      Q.  You assumed that the majority of quotations were not

          accepted by the client.

      A.  Okay, I disagree.

      Q.  I further suggest to you that many assumptions in your

 

15:14     valuation are now doubtful at best; do you agree?

      A.  I disagree.

      MR ONG:  I have no further questions, your Honour.

      COURT:  All right.

                       Re-examination by MR VIJAY

      MR VIJAY:  May it please your Honour.

              It was suggested to you whether you relied on

          Graham's representation that the majority of the

          quotations were not accepted, and you denied it.

              Can I ask you to clarify whether Mr Graham made any

          representations at all about the case in February 2006?

      MR ONG:  Your Honour, isn't it that a leading question,

          whether Mr Graham made representations to him?

      MR VIJAY:  The question was whether Mr Graham represented --

      COURT:  Can you just rephrase the question and move on.

      MR VIJAY:  Were there any other -- let me think which way

          I can phrase it without ...

      COURT:  Take your time.

      MR VIJAY:  Thank you, your Honour.

              First, you deny, by which you mean that Mr Graham

          did not represent to you that the majority of the

          quotations were not accepted; right?

      MR ONG:  Again it's leading question, surely.

      MR VIJAY:  I have not asked my question.

      COURT:  All right.

 

15:16 MR VIJAY:  My question is: when Mr Graham instructed you,

          can you explain what instructions or representation he

          made to you?

      MR ONG:  Again, I'm sorry, your Honour, he is still asking

          whether representations were made.  The who, what,

          where, when, why and how does not change the text of the

          leading.

      COURT:  Move on then.

      MR VIJAY:  You were asked about some contractual terms,

          right, which was written on one of Ed Poole's drawings;

          do you remember?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Can you explain, first of all, how did you discover

          that?

      A.  The contractual terms that I was asked about earlier,

          which were actually read out to me, was on page 154 of

          my affidavit, and --

      MR ONG:  I'm sorry, your Honour, I'm of the impression that

          he is an expert witness.  The questions seem to relate

          to facts in dispute.

      MR VIJAY:  Well, you should have thought about it when you

          were asking him questions on the contract.

      MR ONG:  I am entitled to ask him anything when I'm

          cross-examining him, Mr Vijay.

      MR VIJAY:  So am I entitled to re-examine on anything that

 

15:18     you asked.  I mean, it's simple --

      COURT:  If it's not going to effect the outcome ...

      MR VIJAY:  Okay, your Honour --

      COURT:  Yes, just move on.

      MR VIJAY:  Okay, Mr Crispin, in view of -- maybe I will

          start from the beginning.

              You were asked by Mr Sreeni about your educational

          qualification, and you said you attended a sandwich

          course and this and that.

              Could you give us some details about this course,

          about this sandwich course that you spoke about and in

          particular what are the areas of your study?

      A.  Sorry, the various what of my study?

      COURT:  Could I at this juncture ask Mr Sreeni, isn't your

          case that he's the wrong expert, in the sense that --

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Yes, exactly.

      COURT:  You're doubting the fact that his sandwich course or

          whatever course does not qualify him to speak in

          a different area?

      MR VIJAY:  I think he is an expert building surveyor, your

          Honour, on the question of tiles and debonding of tiles,

          occasionally on water ingress.

      COURT:  Yes, so he's not trying to suggest that he is

          uneducated.

      MR VIJAY:  No, I just want him to -- I believe -- I don't

 

15:20     suggest --

      COURT:  No, he's saying that he is qualified for that

          particular purpose.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Sorry, your Honour.  I won't object if my

          learned friend asks him point blank, "Were there any

          subjects called quantity surveying?"  That's where my

          learned friend wants to go.  And I can tell my learned

          friend I did basic accounting in law school as well.

      COURT:  So, do accounting students learn insurance law,

          shipping law, banking law?  It won't take you very far.

      MR VIJAY:  Yes, your Honour, but maybe -- we are making

          comparison to legal studies, maybe theirs might be

          a different setup.  I'll just clear it then, if your

          Honour will allow.  That is my learned friend's

          understanding, but I believe when I took instructions

          from him he said something else.

      COURT:  I'm trying to save time, but if you want to go on

          and ask him about the sandwich course and how long it

          took ...

      MR SREENIVASAN:  You can ask him point blank whether he did

          quantity surveying as a subject.

      MR VIJAY:  Yes, your Honour, I would like him to say the

          course he attended and the manner in which --

      COURT:  Go ahead.

      MR VIJAY:  Yes, Mr Crispin.

 

15:21 A.  Sorry, maybe for clarification I can just hear your

          question again, please?

      Q.  Yesterday, in one of the questions, you were asked about

          your educational course.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And you said it's kind of a sandwich course.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  I'm seeking clarification on that.  Can you just give us

          a little bit about how many years the course was, what

          did you do for the first two years, what were the areas

          you covered in your studies, et cetera?

      A.  Well, in brief it's a sandwich course or described as

          such because it's divided really into three parts.

          There is two years at university, there is one year

          approved professional training, and then there is

          a final year at university.

              My university was Salford.  At that time that was

          one of the two universities where surveying was untaken.

          The first two years prior to the sandwich year out were

          a combination of building surveyors and quantity

          surveyors and then after the sandwich year, for the

          final year, there was a split where the quantity

          surveyors and the building surveyors went to different

          classes.  There was a small amount of overlap for

          construction technology but there was an element of

 

15:23     split as well.

      Q.  Okay.  I think the $1.20 and $3.50 has been sufficiently

          covered.  (Pause.)

              Can I just clarify on CPG's handbook at D21.

          I believe it is -- we established it as the second

          quarter publication, right?

      A.  The actual publication is December 2006.

      Q.  Could you explain why it is dated December 2006 but it

          covers the second quarter prices?

      A.  Okay.  Actually, if you look at this publication in its

          entirety, there are various references to different

          quarters in 2006, from the first quarter to the second

          quarter.  But I would think that the practical reason is

          that certain data for certain items is obtained at

          certain times, it's then collated and then it's

          published.

      Q.  Is there anything else you want to add to your reason

          for not accepting the $3.50 price with regard to the

          steel?

      A.  Maybe I will just refer to the $3.50 price first, which

          is at page E41 in the CPG document.  Perhaps just to

          keep it simple, putting aside issues of preambles,

          et cetera, in very, very simple terms on page 41 under

          the heading "Mild Steel Members" there are two figures.

          The first figure is solid section, $3.50 per kilogram.

 

15:26         I have seen that figure many times when I was

          undertaking my assessment.  I do not think that that

          figure is appropriate and I referred to the more

          detailed figures in section D, page 29.

              The reason for that is fairly straightforward.  If

          you are pricing something, you have to know what you are

          pricing, and obviously to be specific is much better

          than being general.

              The figure of $3.50 per kilogram is a general figure

          which can be applied in very, very general terms, and it

          can be applied apparently from anything -- from

          a stanchion or column down to a cleat or a bracket, in

          other words something very, very small.

              Now, specifically for The Pump Room, the issue was

          the brew room/cold room where there are, in the Mason

          Works quotation, specific dimensions given for the

          structural steel, so firstly it makes no sense to use

          a generalised figure of $3.50, which could be applied to

          many elements where there are specific figures,

          particularly for steel columns and beams, so at page

          D29, it's quite clear that dimensions are given, in

          effect densities are given which can correlate very,

          very closely with the figures in the Mason Works

          quotation.

              The alternate figure that's been suggested of $3.50

 

15:28     in my opinion is really rather meaningless, because

          theoretically it's talking about mild steel members in

          general terms.

              Mild steel members could relate to something very

          small like, for example, a steel bookcase, equally it

          could refer to a very large steel structure.  There is

          no limitation within this particular definition, so

          taking an extreme, it could be perhaps a metal bookcase

          up to an oil rig, they are both steel structures and

          they both conclude beams, girders, but of different

          dimensions.

              The issues with the $3.50 figure is that it includes

          labour.  Obviously the labour to construct a bookcase is

          very, very different from that of constructing something

          like an oil rig, so I do not think that these are

          comparable figures.

              The correct figures to use are at page D29, and it

          does not make sense, if you have general figures and

          specific figures, to rely on the general figures.  The

          specific, directly correlating figures with very, very

          clear references as to steel dimensions should be used.

              So that would be the basis for my reason.  That was

          the basis of my calculation.  I have referred directly

          back to the Mason Works quotation.  You cannot

          specifically do that with the $3.50 per kilogram figure,

 

15:29     you can with the figures at page D29.  I've referred

          back to the figures and I have undertaken my

          calculations, whether it be $1.50 per kilogram supply

          and delivery or $1.50 supply, delivery and labour.

              But based on what's provided at page D29, it will

          allow you to get a very accurate figure of what the cost

          of the steel will be and depending on what rate you

          get -- it's either going to be, you know, 28,000 or

          40,000, around there, and that will also highlight back

          to the specific items for the brew house and the cold

          room and the cost quoted by Mason Works.  And one can

          see a direct comparison in terms of the steel, obviously

          not in the price, because the price variance is

          enormous.

      Q.  With regard to -- it's item 10 I think in your report,

          for the $40,000, you were asked how much you would

          factor in for the M&E works.  Do you recollect that part

          of the question and evidence?

      A.  I recall that, yes.

      Q.  My question is: does that item number 10 in your

          report -- $40,000 -- factor in M&E works?

      A.  Within the $40,000, you mean?

      Q.  Yes.

      A.  The figure of $40,000 purely for the construction of the

          brew house and cold room structure, but obviously that

 

15:32     comes back to what I've said earlier regarding the $1.20

          figure or $1.50 figure.

              The M&E works are included under other quotations

          from Mason Works.  Just referring to page 142, which is

          the tabulation, there is air-conditioning or M&E works

          under variation 1, under variation 2, under variation 3

          and under variation 4, at least.  So in other words,

          there at least four separate quotations that

          specifically deal with M&E works.  So definitely, in my

          figure of $40,000, M&E works are not included.

      Q.  In these four quotations or items that relate to M&E

          works, do any of them refer to the M&E related to

          item 10, that is the brew --

      MR ONG:  Your Honour, may I remind my learned friend not to

          lead again.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  I take a different view from my learned

          friend Mr Ong --

      MR VIJAY:  Wait, wait.  There are two people objecting.

          I can only listen to one at a time.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  No, no, I'm agreeing.

              Subject, your Honour, to the fact that since my

          learned friend is going into new ground not covered in

          cross-examination, I will be asking for leave to further

          cross-examine on this interesting new ground, where this

          witness takes from quote 10 and says, "I don't include

 

15:33     it because it's cover somewhere else", then we are going

          to go through the numbers with him.  Not more than two

          minutes.

      MR VIJAY:  First and foremost, this is not a new question,

          these questions about M&E works in relation to $40,000

          in item 10, I believe was asked -- I don't want to use

          the words ad nauseam, but quite repeatedly before we

          broke for lunch.  My memory may not be quite as good as

          my learned friend but it was asked.

      COURT:  Please proceed.

      MR VIJAY:  Thank you, your Honour.

              So my question was: these three or four quotations

          where the M&E works are referred to, do they also cover

          the M&E works connected with the cold room and the brew

          house structure, item 10?

      A.  Yes, it does.  Particularly in relation to

          air-conditioning, because there is air-conditioning

          plant constructed above the steel structure of the brew

          house/cold room.

      MR VIJAY:  I have no other questions, your Honour.  Thank

          you.

      COURT:  All right.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, I am asking for leave just to

          ask one question, and I will state what the question is,

          because I have got an A for accounting.  Item 10 has

 

15:35     a figure of $266,000 as the variation, your Honour.

          Next to that we have a valuation of 40, one normally

          expects that if you have this figure here, another

          figure there, one is talking about apples, and the other

          is talking about apples, so my simple question which

          I will ask your Honour to give me leave to ask is

          whether the 40,000 relates or correlates to the work

          encompassed in the 266,000?  That's what we've all been

          doing.

      MR VIJAY:  A very fair question.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Thank you.

              And if the answer is no, God help us, this table is

          amazing.

      A.  Sorry, I didn't hear that bit.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  No, I need his Honour's leave first.

      COURT:  Yes.

              Further cross-examination by MR SREENIVASAN

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Mr Crispin, look at page 160, item 10.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  You've got this whole table, right, "Variation" in the

          middle, and then next to that you have another item,

          "Valuation"; am I right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  If you look right at the end, you have a total amount

          for variation and then you have a total amount for

 

15:36     valuation; am I right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  We know -- you don't know, but the lawyers know that

          Mr Vijay's client is claiming the difference between the

          two, ie Mr Ong's client charges so much in the middle

          column, but you are saying the same amount of work is

          only worth so much on the right-hand column; am I right?

      A.  Correct, I know that there's one issue --

      Q.  But am I right, Mr Crispin?  It's almost 4 o'clock.

          Let's try and get a straight answer.

      A.  There is a difference.

      Q.  So I am wrong?

      A.  No, you are right.

      Q.  So would you greet that the $40,000 must correlate to

          the work described, the $266,000?

      A.  It relates to some of the work.

      Q.  But not all?

      A.  That's right, yes.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Okay.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, can I then follow up and just ask --

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Then I will finish off.

              Some under item 10 but some of the other 266 is

          under other items; am I right?

      A.  No, I am not saying that.

      Q.  So where is the other?

 

15:38 A.  Let me just find the quotation.

      Q.  No, don't look to the quotation, Mr Crispin.  Look at

          your own report.  What does your report say?

      A.  No, I would like to look at the quotation.

      MR VIJAY:  Why not?

      MR SREENIVASAN:  You can't make it up as you go along.  I

          mean the witness, not you.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, in all fairness, not every one of us

          can remember all the figures in that report.  Let him

          refer to his quotation.  We are not here to test his

          memory.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  I will repeat my question before you go on

          a wild goose chase, Mr Crispin.  My question was: does

          the 40 correlate to the 266 items, your answer is, "No,

          it doesn't", right?  So now I am asking you, in your

          report, where are the other 266 items caught?

      A.  Sorry, in my report, the ...?

      Q.  The $266,000 worth of items.

      MR VIJAY:  He's looking.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Where is it caught in your report, number

          11 to 13?

      A.  The quotation that I've used $266,000 is at page 99 of

          my report.

      Q.  Yes.

      A.  That quotation includes the cold room and brew house.

 

15:39 Q.  Yes.

      A.  It also includes the mezzanine floor.

      Q.  Yes.

      A.  So the mezzanine floor wasn't undertaken.

      Q.  Yeah.

      A.  So I've taken the mezzanine floor out.

      Q.  Okay.

      A.  Then I have also, as has been shown previously,

          undertaken my assessment of the steelwork for the cold

          room and the brew house.

      Q.  I tell you what, let's make life difficult, turn to

          page 98.  This is the quotation, right, starting at page

          99; am I right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Is item 1 in item 10 in your report, in the $40,000?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  It's in the $40,000?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Item 1.2, is it in the $40,000?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Is 1.3 in the $40,000?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Good.  2.1, definitely, am I right?

      A.  The workscope, yes.

      Q.  2.2, definitely, am I right?

 

15:40 A.  Yes.

      Q.  2.3, is it in the $40,000?

      A.  For the floor slab, yes.

      Q.  It's in the $40,000?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  2.4, is it in the $40,000?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  2.5, is it in the $40,000?

      A.  2.5, yes.

      Q.  2.6, is it in the $40,000?

      A.  2.6, the screed, yes.

      Q.  2.7, is it in the $40,000?

      A.  2.7, the tiling, yes.

      Q.  2.8, is it in the $40,000?

      A.  Scupper drain cover, yes.

      Q.  2.9, is it in the $40,000?

      A.  2.9, this one, no.

      Q.  Okay.  2.10, is it in the $40,000?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Turn to the next page.  2.11, is it in the $40,000?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Item 3 we know was completely omitted; am I right?

      A.  The mezzanine floor was taken out, yes.

      Q.  Okay.  So if I take 80,000 tonnes times 1.56?

      MR VIJAY:  Sorry, your Honour, I think he asked for one

 

15:42     question and then related to that you have gone to a few

          that's okay --

      MR SREENIVASAN:  You can re-examine.

      MR VIJAY:  He is starting his cross all over again.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  I have two questions left, that's all, your

          Honour.

              Using 1.56, your answer you gave Mr Ong, the 18,000

          tonnes, the cost would be 228,860; am I right?

      A.  Sorry, 1.56 or --

      Q.  1.56 per kg.  Remember you old us including

          preliminaries and everything else?

      A.  Sorry, 1.56 times?

      Q.  Times 18, 500.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  What's the total, Mr Crispin?

      A.  28,860.

      Q.  So you have valid $12,000 for all the other work?

      A.  Well, there was one other floor item, remember, which --

      Q.  No, we went through item by item here, remember?

      A.  No, I'm saying there is another item in my report which

          was the one on page 160, item 9.

      Q.  The one that we all can't find?

      MR VIJAY:  I think from 10 to 9 to 8 to 7, I mean this is --

      MR SREENIVASAN:  I'll stop.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, he can submit.

 
 

 

 

 

2013 thepumproom.com | Contact

 

 

StatCounter - Free Web Tracker and Counter  

home