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 3

 

Monday, 3 November 2008

(10.30 am)

       MR VIJAY:  May it please your Honour.

       COURT:  Yes.

       MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, may I call my next witness, William

           Graham.  His affidavit is in the plaintiff's bundle of

           affidavits, volume 1.

                   WILLIAM GRAHAM (sworn)

              Examination-in-chief by MR VIJAY

      MR VIJAY:  Your name is Mr William Graham?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  And your address is 30 Merchant Road, #04-19 Riverside

          Point, Singapore 058282?

      A.  That is the address of The Pump Room, which is our head

           office.

      Q.  Could you then state your residential address, please?

      A.  My residential address is 237 Arcadia Road, #05-04 The

          Arcadia, Singapore 289844.

      Q.  Your occupation?

      A.  I am a company director.

      Q.  Can I refer to you to your affidavit of

           evidence-in-chief.  It's in volume 1, the whole of

           volume 1, in the plaintiff's bundle of affidavits.

      A.  Yes, I have it.

      Q.  Do you confirm the contents of this affidavit to be true

 

10:32     and correct?

      A.  I do.

      MR VIJAY:  That's all, your Honour.

                      Cross-examination by MR TAN

      MR TAN:  Your Honour, with your leave.

              Mr William Graham, my name is Eugene Tan and I act

          for the 1st defendants, Poole Associates.  I will be

          taking you through cross-examination.

              Mr Graham, you are the single largest shareholder of

          The Pump Room?

      A.  Not correct.

      Q.  How many shares do you hold in The Pump Room then?

      A.  325,000.

      Q.  And who are the other shareholders?

      A.  The largest shareholder in The Pump Room is Quayside

          Dining Pte Ltd with 675,000.  I am also a shareholder of

          Quayside Dining Pte Ltd, but not a majority shareholder.

          My family and I and my wife together control roughly

          65 per cent of The Pump Room.  I think that's the

          question you're really asking.

      Q.  Okay.  Thank you very much.  Let's talk about Quayside

          Dining Pte Ltd.  What is Quayside Dining Pte Ltd's

          business?

      A.  It runs restaurants.  It has two restaurants in Clarke

          Quay and one restaurant at the moment in Keppel.  At

 

10:33     Clarke Quay it has Quayside Dining, which is a seafood

          restaurant; it has Peony Jade, which is

          a Szechuan/Cantonese restaurant, and we opened about two

          months ago another Peony Jade at Keppel Golf Club.

      Q.  Mr Graham, would I be correct to say that Quayside

          Dining restaurant and Peony Jade at Clarke Quay were

          opened before The Pump Room?

      A.  Quayside was opened in 2002, but not in its present

          location, and Peony Jade was opened in 2004 in its

          present location, and Keppel was opened in 2008.

      Q.  How many years of experience do you have in the food and

          beverage industry.

      A.  Roughly four.

      Q.  And during this time, how many outlets have you set up,

          food and beverage outlets?

      A.  Let me be clear, the main experts in the food and

          beverage industry in our family is not me.  My wife is

          a Singaporean Chinese lady and her family are Hainanese.

          They have much experience in the restaurant business.

          My background is accounting and marketing.  I am not

          historically a restaurateur at all.  My main experience

          in restaurants is enjoying what they serve.

      Q.  But you have set up restaurants prior to The Pump Room?

      A.  We set up two restaurants prior to The Pump Room.  One

          is Quayside and the other is Peony Jade.  The guiding

 

10:35     influences there were more my wife's family, but, yes,

          I was actively involved as I was the main provider of

          funds for those operations.

      Q.  I also understand that you were a director of

          Sommerville?

      A.  Bill Sommerville, the owner of Sommerville group, is my

          father-in-law by a previous marriage.  Bill has

          operations throughout Asia, he has a factory in

          Thailand, and he has got operations in Hong Kong, in

          China, in Malaysia, in Thailand, in the Philippines and

          in Singapore.

              The Singapore operation is a relatively small part

          of the Sommerville group, and I have got a 30 per cent

          shareholding in the Singapore operation only.

      Q.  Now, what is Sommerville's business?

      A.  It depends which Sommerville you're talking about --

      Q.  -- (unclear -- simultaneous speakers) --

      A.  Are you talking about the group or are you talking about

          the local company in Singapore?

      Q.  The local one here in Singapore which you --

      A.  As a designer, installer and maintainer of commercial

          kitchens.

      Q.  So would I be correct to say that you have had

          experience in renovation works?

      A.  I play no part in the active management of Sommerville.

 

10:36     I basically have those shares because, during the Asian

          crisis, the group got in trouble, and I provided finance

          to help them; I was given these shares as payment for

          the funds I advanced, because the company didn't at that

          time have any money to pay us back.

      Q.  I actually have not finished my question yet, Mr Graham.

      A.  My apologies.

      Q.  Prior to The Pump Room, and my point is this, you have

          had experience setting up -- let me rephrase that, your

          Honour -- prior to The Pump Room, essentially, you have

          had experience in setting up food and beverage outlets

          as well as carrying out renovation works -- yes?

      A.  It depends how you define "experience".  Did I do it

          myself?  No.  Did I watch somebody else do it?  Yes.

      Q.  And in these projects, you hired interior designers?

      A.  I hired -- the company hired, not me -- the company

          hired a company called Salim Tchi Mun is a reputable

          designer, they hired them for -- I believe I have

          actually given you a copy of the contract, they hired

          them to do interior design and project management for

          the sum of $28,000, for both Quayside Seafood and Peony

          Jade.

      Q.  I am not just restricting this to Quayside Dining, but

          it extends as well to Sommerville and your experience

          there; you have hired architects before?

 

10:38 A.  Personally?

      Q.  Either personally --

      A.  No.

      Q.  Or in the capacity of --

      A.  I once had the misfortune to build a house in Belgium in

          1984, and I had an architect for that, and I am still

          suffering from the lashes that that gave me.  That's the

          only architect I have ever hired personally.

              I'm not clear exactly where an architect and the --

          I don't know, whatever else, starts and finishes.

          Mr Poole is the only architect that I have ever been

          involved in hiring.  I did not hire him personally; the

          company, of course, hired him.  Not me.

      Q.  Right.  But let me repeat my question again, then:  Did

          Quayside hire architects for its prior project, or

          projects prior to The Pump Room?

      A.  Tchi Mun was the person hired.  I do not recall his

          exact qualifications.

      Q.  Have you ever, either as a director of Quayside or

          Sommerville or in your personal capacity, hired

          engineers prior to The Pump Room?

      A.  Hired engineers?

      Q.  Engaged engineers.

      A.  In a personal capacity, no.  I guess, if you think

          through the various projects, there are certainly M&E in

 

10:40     every -- in every project.  I guess they have engineers,

          and I would guess that they were hired.  Did I do it

          personally?  No, I did not.  The hiring of these people

          was done by the project manager of the project in

          question, not by me.  Project managers, essentially, are

          almost invariably responsible for hiring the experts

          being called in, whether they are M&E people or whatever

          else they are.  They are supposed to be the people

          coordinating the hiring of the experts, as I'm sure

          you're aware.

      Q.  My point is simply this, Mr Graham:  You had engaged

          engineers before, so you understand what --

      A.  Did I say that?

      Q.  No, I'm telling you my point is this.

      A.  Oh, I see.

      Q.  You have hired engineers before, either in your personal

          capacity or as a director or -- of Quayside Dining or

          Sommerville --

      A.  I thought I said quite the opposite.  I thought I said

          that as far as I recall, the specialists were hired by

          the project manager.  Did I -- did I not say that?

      Q.  Very well.

      A.  Can you clarify?  Because you are putting words in my

          mouth.

      Q.  I'll rephrase my question.  Basically, you know what

 

10:41     engineers are required to do in a project?

      A.  I am an absolute ignoramus with things to do with --

          anything to do with construction, and I would like it to

          stay that way, because my experience so far has been

          quite horrendous.

      Q.  Did you know --

      A.  May I have a glass of water, please?

      Q.  Sure.

              My apologies, your Honour, but it's going to be a

          long day.

      COURT:  All right.

      MR TAN:  It's all right.

      A.  My apologies, Eugene.  Please go ahead.

      Q.  It's all right.

              Did you know Clark Martin's previous experience in

          the food and beverage industry?

      A.  I knew primarily of his involvement in Tapestry.  I had

          heard of other things.  Tapestry is a restaurant in

          Clarke Quay which is majority-owned by a chap called

          Phil Robinson.  Clark has, as I recall, 24 per cent.  He

          was not actively -- he was not actively involved in the

          management of that.  It was run by Phil Robinson.

              I believe also he had other restaurants, and I do

          not believe, in any of those restaurants, was he in fact

          the controlling shareholder.  I think he was always in a

 

10:42     minority position.

      Q.  I didn't ask whether or not he was a controlling

          shareholder.  My question was, do you know whether or

          not he had extensive experience in the F&B industry?

      A.  Absolutely.  Clark has a lot of experience in F&B.

      Q.  Do you know how many years of experience he had in the

          food and beverage industry?

      A.  I would guess -- I mean, he must be 40 -- I would guess

          at least 20.  But Clark, I believe, will be a witness,

          and you can clarify that with him.

      Q.  And do you know, during this 20 years of experience, how

          many food and beverage outlets he has set up?

      A.  I think he's opened at least half a dozen, and I think

          all of them have failed.

      Q.  Now, you earlier --

      A.  Except the Tapestry.

      Q.  Earlier you said, and you confirmed that he has got

          quite fair amount of experience in the food and beverage

          industry.  So you knew he also had contacts within the

          industry?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And when you all were conceptualising the Pump Room, did

          you rely on Clark for his contacts in the industry?

      A.  We did not rely on Clark for his contracts in the

          industry exclusively.  We used the contracts in the

 

10:44     industry that he had.

              I think Clark gave two really important

          introductions.  One was the band, and to be honest, a

          tremendous amount of the success of the Pump Room comes

          from the fact that Jive Talking is a superb band.  The

          other was the contact with Mr Ed Poole.  Mr Ed Poole was

          introduced to us as a person who had a unique blend of

          experience which made him the natural choice for this

          job, and that was he had worked with Brewerkz, which is

          another -- and very successful -- microbrewery.  I

          believe Mr Poole was at one point a shareholder of

          Brewerkz.  I believe he was a designer and project

          manager of Brewerkz, but I do not know that for certain,

          and Mr Poole, if he wishes, can confirm or deny it.

              I believe the other main introductions for the Pump

          Room were the introduction of the brewmaster, which was

          done through a contact of mine, and introduction of the

          chef, which was done through a contact of mine.

              So I would say that all of us contributed key

          introductions to the people who basically formed the

          team of designer/project manager/band/chef/brewmaster,

          et cetera.

              So yes, Clark certainly played part.

      Q.  Mr Graham, did you leave it to Clark Martin to source

          for an interior designer?

 

10:45 A.  When Clark Martin suggested Mr Ed Poole --

      Q.  Sorry to interrupt you there, Mr Graham.  I would

          appreciate it if you could just give an answer to my

          question:  "Yes", "no", "maybe".

      A.  The answer is no.

              The answer I thought you were asking was why did we

          choose Mr Poole.  Mr Martin mentioned Mr Poole and gave

          his unique qualifications, and then there was no

          decision to make.  It is such a perfect combination of

          Brewerkz and China Jump that frankly, there is no other

          designer in town who would be -- remotely be as well

          qualified.

              So Mr Poole was chosen without discussion.  There

          was a no-brainer there.

      Q.  Now, did Clark Martin inform you that he had used Poole

          Associates previously for his other projects?

      A.  He did not use Poole Associates for all his other

          projects.  He did use Poole Associates for at least

          three or four other projects.

      Q.  And he came -- or rather Poole Associates came highly

          recommended to the Pump Room, isn't it?

      A.  He recommended Mr Poole as being the exact type of

          project manager we wanted, and he recommended him highly

          because of that.

      Q.  Now --

 

10:47 A.  And we agreed very quickly, because, as I say, it is a

          -- we thought it was a match made in heaven.

      Q.  Now, at the time that the Pump Room was looking for an

          interior designer, did you know that Clark Martin was

          using Poole Associates for his other project, The

          Highlander?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Yes.

      A.  The Highlander was roughly -- I think two months in

          advance of The Pump Room.  They opened just shortly

          before the Pump Room, because the mess that the project

          was delayed The Highlander as well as delaying the Pump

          Room.

      Q.  Now, Mr Martin, or Mr Clark Martin, had worked in three

          or four projects; was this including or excluding The

          Highlander?

              Sorry, let me rephrase that.

      A.  I think you should ask Mr Martin in detail about the

          project he's worked on, rather than my try to

          remember --

      Q.  No, do you know --

      A.  -- as a witness.

              I know that he worked with several.  The ones that

          come to my mind, I believe Mr Poole was involved in Cafe

          Society.  I believe he was involved in China Jump.  I do

 

10:48     not believe he was involved in Tapestry.  And there were

          a few other projects that Mr Martin can elaborate on.

      Q.  And since you know or knew that Clark Martin had worked

          on a number of projects with Poole Associates

          previously, you assume that he was familiar with Poole

          Associates' practice, modus operandi?

      A.  Mr Martin said Poole Associates -- specifically

          Mr Poole -- was an excellent designer, and he

          recommended him because he had experience of a brewery,

          in Brewerkz, and he had experience of a club, with China

          Jump.  That is why he was recommended, and as I say, we

          thought it was a match made in heaven.

      Q.  No, my question was this:  Did you assume that Clark

          Martin was familiar with Poole Associates' practice and

          modus operandi?

      A.  The thought never crossed my mind.

      Q.  Did you leave Mr Martin, then, to negotiate and deal

          directly with Poole Associates regarding his scope of

          work and fees?

      A.  Very early on, Mr Poole basically asked for a fee of

          $75,000 for the design and project management work.  In

          my experience, this seemed extremely high.  I have given

          background already as to what my parameters for saying

          that were.  I mentioned $28,000 for the two restaurants

          combined; I've mentioned -- The Highlander was $18,000.

 

10:49         So I was very uncomfortable with $75,000 asked.

          However, we had actually no negotiating position

          whatsoever, because we had already accepted Mr Poole,

          and we recognised, clearly, there was nobody around

          remotely as good as Mr Poole for this job -- or so we

          thought at the time.

              I therefore said to Clark, "Look, you know this

          chap; I don't know him.  I have no basis for negotiating

          with him, because I simply do not have any alternative

          remotely as well qualified.  Please try to get some kind

          of reduction.  Use your friendship with him to get

          something off."

              But it was not a priority, because to be honest, the

          fees were not particularly relevant in the scope of the

          project, and our desire was to get up and running by

          October 1st, which was a top priority for us.

      Q.  I'm going to repeat that question again, because I don't

          think I got an answer to it.  Again, Mr Graham, may I

          remind you before you give your explanation -- and I'm

          not stopping you from giving an explanation, mind you --

          but I would like a direct answer to my question, "yes",

          "no", "maybe", before you go on to explain.

              So I'm going to ask that question one more time:

          Did you leave Clark Martin to deal directly with Poole

          Associates about the fees and the scope of work?  Yes or

 

10:51     no?

      A.  You actually have more than one question there.  And

          I'll --

      Q.  Okay, I will break it up.

      A.  -- elaborate for you.  You said, did I leave him (sic)

          to him to negotiate with the fees?  Answer, yes.  Scope

          of work, answer, no.

              Please do not put words into my mouth.

      Q.  All right.  Thank you for your answer.

              Now, the contract between Poole Associates and The

          Pump Room was signed only in July, the 6th of July 2006;

          is that correct?

      A.  It was dated the 1st of July 2006.  I signed it on the

          6th of July 2006.  That is correct.

      Q.  So would I be correct to say, prior to July 2006, the

          terms and conditions of the contract between Poole

          Associates and Pump Room were not finalised?

      A.  Before the contract was signed, the terms and conditions

          were not identified in detail, and therefore one

          presupposes that the normal terms and conditions would

          be applying.

              Now, if the question you're asking -- well, that

          basically is it.  I assumed that the normal terms and

          conditions were applying.  But the key thing is that he

          was the project manager and the designer, as of, in my

 

10:52     mind, 2nd, 3rd of May, 2006.  And if you look at the

          documentation, it is very clear he was working flat out

          on that.

      Q.  Mr Graham, in your affidavit, you said that the terms of

          the contract were first forwarded to you in July 2006.

      A.  The detailed written form -- detailed written terms;

          correct.

      Q.  So prior to that date, you never actually saw the terms

          and conditions of the proposed contract?

      A.  The terms and conditions of all Mr Poole's contracts are

          virtually identical.

      Q.  When you say "virtually identical", identical with what?

      A.  If you look at the Cafe Society terms, they were the

          same.  So we were, through Clark Martin, familiar with

          the normal terms that Mr Poole had.

              But are you asking me, did I know them in detail?

          Absolutely not.  I assumed that the normal standard

          industry practice terms and conditions would apply.

          Were they spelt out in detail?  Absolutely not.  They

          were first spelt out in detail for me on the 6th -- on

          the 1st of July, I guess, if the contract reached me by

          then, but certainly on the 6th of July, when I signed

          it.

              I would agree it is open to conjecture what my

          interpretation and Mr Poole's interpretation were of the

 

10:54     terms and conditions before that date, but I would argue

          that normal materials and conditions of an independent

          restaurant contract would apply.

      Q.  So following from what you just said, you would agree

          that until you saw the terms and conditions, in July

          2006, you did not know the exact scope of work that

          Poole Associates were going to undertake?

      A.  I believe that the exact scope of work of Poole

          Associates was interior designer and project manager for

          The Pump Room project as it is usually practised in the

          industry for independent restaurants.  I did not think

          it differed in any way, shape, or form from the others

          that I have seen before and since, and my understanding

          also is that Mr Poole was designer and project manager

          for all the projects that he does -- did with Clarke

          Quay -- sorry, with Clark Martin.

      Q.  No, no.  Let's go back on this.  Prior to July 2006, you

          didn't see the terms and conditions; right?

      A.  I did not see written terms and conditions.  Right.  I

          mean, that's rather self-evident.

      Q.  Let's stop there.  So you wouldn't have known the exact

          scope of work the that Poole Associates had

          contractually undertaken prior to July 2006; is that

          correct?

      A.  I assumed it was a standard approach of interior

 

10:55     designer and project manager, as is in the case of every

          single independent restaurant I have seen before or

          since.

      Q.  Now, that's --

      A.  That is all I can say.

      Q.  That is the problem, Mr Graham.  You assumed, but didn't

          know the exact scope of work; am I correct?  It's a

          yes-or-no question only.

      A.  It's a yes-or-no question which is self-evident.  Of

          course, the exact scope of work, in intense detail, no.

          The general scope of work, interior designer and project

          manager, yes.

      Q.  So --

      A.  If you like, I can say interior designer and project

          manager, yes, that was his exact scope of work.  If you

          want me to go through 15,000 different variations of

          what that might or might not imply, I cannot do that.  I

          was quite clear in my mind that from early May, Mr Poole

          was interior designer and project manager.  With no

          discussion, it was certain in my mind.

      Q.  Mr Graham, now, the contract was only signed by you on

          the 6th of July 2006.  So it's fair to say that before

          that date, there was no contract between Poole

          Associates and The Pump Room; yes?

      A.  There was a verbal contract.  He was working on the

 

10:56     contract.  Don't be ridiculous.  It wasn't a signed

          contract; it was a verbal contract.

      Q.  No, I said --

      COURT:  Did you say "don't be ridiculous"?

      A.  Well, I mean -- my apologies, your Honour.

      COURT:  He is a lawyer.  He is telling you that there is no

          signed contract.

      A.  I thought he said there was no contract, your Honour.

          My apologies.

      MR TAN:  Well, I'll repeat that question again, your Honour.

              So prior to 6th of July 2006, when you signed the

          contract, am I correct to say that there was no contract

          between the plaintiffs and Poole Associates?  No signed

          contract; sorry.

      A.  Your Honour, may I ask him to be clear:  Is it no

          contract, or no signed contract?  It is quite different.

      COURT:  What is your position?

      A.  My position is that there was no signed contract.  There

          was a verbal contract.

      COURT:  When was the contract made?

      A.  It was made early in May, and the documentation will

          prove that throughout May and throughout June, there was

          extensive work done by Mr Poole, by --

      COURT:  In your affidavit, you said it was backdated to

          1st July.  So why didn't you backdate -- (simultaneous

 

10:57     speakers - unclear) --

      A.  -- I was talking about the signing, your Honour; forgive

          me.  I was talking about the signing of the contract was

          backdated -- sorry, the contract was dated 1st of July;

          it was signed on the 6th of July.

              And I believe we said that we had no objections to

          signing a contract which had been backdated, because he

          had effectively been working since early May on the

          project.  It is a small -- signing a contract on the 6th

          when it's dated the 1st seems to be a little bit of an

          issue.  I mean we had no issue with it at all, because,

          effectively, he had been working on the contract since

          early May.

      COURT:  We have a written document now which says that the

          contract starts on 1 July.

      A.  We have a written document dated 1 July, which spells

          out in great detail Mr Poole's responsibilities.  Before

          that document, Mr Poole had agreed to accept the

          position of interior decorator and project manager and

          had been working on it since 2 May.  By 4 July --

      COURT:  All the terms had been settled?

      A.  The detailed terms were not settled.  He was the

          interior decorator and project manager --

      COURT:  All the essential terms were settled?

      A.  The essential term to me is simply that he is

 

10:58     an interior designer and project manager --

      COURT:  All the essential terms were settled, or is it just

          a general concept, "You are interior designer, take

          over, come give us your ideas"?

      A.  He was interior designer and project manager from 2 May.

          It is not give us your ideas.  We are desperate to get

          started by 1 October --

      COURT:  There is no relevance --

      A.  We cannot afford to lose time, the --

      COURT:  I asked you a simple question; were the essential

          terms of the contract agreed upon in May?

      A.  In my mind, the essential agreement was that Mr Poole

          took over the job of interior designer --

      COURT:  What were the terms --

      A.  -- and project manager.

      COURT:  What were the terms?

      A.  I do not have a list of terms.  To me these jobs are

          self-explanatory.

      COURT:  A contract has to have clear terms.

      A.  The only terms I have is that he was --

      COURT:  The written terms of 1 July?

      A.  The written terms of 1 July put in writing the terms

          that in my mind were implicit from 2 May.

      COURT:  To your mind or to both minds?

      A.  These are Mr Poole's standard terms, so I can only

 

10:59     assume that, when he accepted the job, he would assume

          his standard terms would apply; since these are his

          standard terms, why would I assume anything else would

          apply?

      COURT:  Carry on.

      MR TAN:  Did you see Poole Associates' standard terms prior

          to July 2006?

      A.  I did not.

      Q.  You also confirm in your affidavit that the fees to be

          paid to Poole Associates were only confirmed or agreed

          in the end of June, just prior to the terms or

          conditions being sent to you?

      A.  The fees asked by Mr Poole were $75,000 and $75,000, if

          he had basically insisted, we were not going to argue

          about that, that it was acceptable.

      Q.  But that wasn't my question.

      A.  So I asked Mr Clark Martin --

      COURT:  No, his question wasn't that.  Listen to his

          question.

      MR TAN:  My question was that the fees before that were to

          be paid to Poole Associates who only agreed in the end

          of June 2006, am I correct?

      A.  The fees were agreed in the signing of the contract on

          6 July.  The fee proposed before that was $75,000, which

          I felt was a bit high, as I say.

 

11:01 Q.  But you only agreed to the sum of $68,000?

      A.  Mr Clark Martin was successful in persuading Mr Poole to

          take a little bit less.

      Q.  And that was only in the end of June 2006?

      A.  Well, no I think -- I can't recall the exact date that

          the agreement on the 68 was made, but certainly the

          agreement on the 68 was endorsed in the agreement signed

          on 6 July, correct.

      COURT:  So you are saying that, prior to that, you all have

          not agreed upon the price?

      A.  We had a price on the table of $75,000 --

      COURT:  Which you didn't accept?

      A.  -- which I felt was high and I asked for some sort of

          discount.

      COURT:  In other words, there was no agreement yet?

      A.  There was no final agreement in price until the

          contracts of July 6 --

      COURT:  How can you have a contract then, if you don't have

          the price?

      A.  The price cap was 75,000.

      COURT:  That's not the point.  You have not agreed on the

          price.

      A.  I take your point.  I had agreed that I would not be --

      COURT:  -- (simultaneous speakers - unclear) -- to have

          a contract, you need to have agreement on important

 

11:02     terms.  If you haven't agreed on the price, then there's

          no contract.

      A.  The point you're making is valid.  I had accepted

          Mr Poole as project manager, there was no question at

          all about that --

      COURT:  That's not --

      A.  -- all I was arguing was, "Give us a discount because 75

          is a bit high".  It took Mr Poole a while, but had he

          come back and said no, he still would have got the

          75,000.

      COURT:  That's not the point.  Until the end of June you

          have not settled the price?

      A.  Until 6 July we have not settled the price.  In our mind

          we had categorically settled on the appointment of

          Mr Poole.

      COURT:  Mr Vijay, can you all make up your mind so that the

          trial can go on.

              You see, a contract has got to have its essential

          terms settled.  If you are running around saying there

          is an oral contract, there is a written contract, what

          is your stand?  Because you have not settled the

          consideration for the services.

              I understand his point.  I mean you can talk to

          an interior designer, you can talk, you can get ideas,

          you can see sketches, but when you settle the amount,

 

11:03     you hire the person, everything, then you can talk.

              So what is your client's position, otherwise Mr Tan

          will be going on and on on this.

      MR VIJAY:  Sir, I think here the peculiar circumstances of

          the case was that I think  what we had committed was

          that Mr Ed Poole did start his work --

      COURT:  No, no, we are talking about the contract.

      MR VIJAY:  I think our position --

      COURT:  You can submit that he started his work earlier

          because I told him about that, that's fine.

      A.  Your Honour, may I make a comment?

      COURT:  Yes.

      A.  The final design for The Pump Room dining/restaurant

          area was finalised by 4 July, finalised.

      MR TAN:  No, we disagree with that.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, our position insofar as the

          agreement is concerned, yes, the formal agreement was

          signed --

      COURT:  Don't use the words "formal agreement".  I am

          interested in what is your position on the contract,

          that's all, the employment contract.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, the plaintiff's position would be

          that there was an oral agreement to when he was already

          working on it, except the price --

      COURT:  You see --

 

11:05 MR VIJAY:  -- and if there was a dispute as to price --

      COURT:  You should know that, if you don't know the price,

          can you say, "I have a contract to buy wheat from you",

          when we haven't settled the price.

      MR VIJAY:  Yes, your Honour, in that sense --

      COURT:  We could have negotiations, you may know that I need

          the wheat, et cetera, that is a separate issue.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, I am going to be taking a very

          clear pleading point, so I think it would be good for me

          to highlight to my learned friend the pleading point.

              If your Honour looks at the bundle of pleadings,

          page 5, here we have originally an endorsement of claim,

          and in the endorsement of claim, the plaintiff claims

          against the 1st defendant damages and losses arising

          from the 1st defendant's breach of express and/or

          implied terms of the agreement dated 1 July 2006, made

          between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.

              If we then look at the amended statement of claim,

          your Honour, at page 13 of the same bundle of pleadings

          at paragraph 6, we have some time around April/May 2006

          the plaintiff put together a business plan to operate

          a microbrewery cum restaurant, at 7, the plaintiff chose

          the 1st defendant to be the designer and project

          manager, and at the last line of paragraph 7, the

          agreement was dated 1 July 2006.

 

11:06         If your Honour now moves to page 14, paragraph 9,

          under "Terms of contract", it is pleaded that the

          plaintiff will refer to the contract prepared by the

          1st defendant and signed by both parties and dated

          1 July 2006 for the full terms and effect.

              So it would be my submission -- whatever the

          evidence of this witness is -- it would be my submission

          at the appropriate point in time that the pleaded case

          does not allow reference to an oral contract, because no

          oral contract has been pleaded, no terms of an oral

          contract have been put forward, and, therefore, we have

          nothing except 1 July, and if the plaintiff's case is

          now saying there was an earlier oral contract, then

          there would have to be a requisite application for

          amendment, with the consequences that would follow.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, if my learned friend -- I didn't

          want to make all this detailed submission, because

          I don't want to prejudice the cross-examination, that's

          why I was refraining and choosing my words carefully,

          but, since my learned friend has gone into such details

          then I think it's only appropriate, if you read

          paragraph 10 of the same pleadings, it says that one of

          the clauses in that agreement of 1 July, your Honour,

          was that we incorporate everything that we have

          discussed prior to that, so there is a bit of

 

11:08     a difficulty there.

              The clause "as discussed at meetings in early

          2000" -- this is (unclear) by Ed Poole, so I was keeping

          it for my cross.  So we have a not so clear -- from

          a layperson's point he would say all this, but we leave

          it for submission.

      COURT:  All right, yes.

      MR TAN:  Your Honour, I think I have gotten the answers that

          I wanted already from cross-examination.  I'm just going

          to put my case, and I'll move on, your Honour.

              Mr Graham, my case is simply this, and I am putting

          it to you, and you can either agree or disagree, and my

          case is this; prior to 6 July 2006, there was no

          contract between Poole Associates and The Pump Room --

          do you agree or disagree?

      A.  I disagree.

      Q.  All right.  Let's move on then.  Let's take a look at

          the terms of the contract, if we can look at your

          affidavit of evidence-in-chief.

      COURT:  Which contract are you referring to now?

      MR TAN:  The contract between Poole Associates and The Pump

          Room.

      COURT:  You are talking about the July contract, are you?

      MR TAN:  The July contract, that's right.

      COURT:  So to be fair to the witness --

 

11:09 A.  Can you give me the page?  This is my affidavit?

      Q.  Page 110 of your affidavit of evidence-in-chief.

      A.  That's just the cover page.

      Q.  That's right.  Mr Graham, when you signed this contract,

          you knew that the contract was between the plaintiffs

          and Poole Associates, correct, and not Ed Poole

          personally?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Did you ever say to Poole Associates, "Please change the

          party in the contract from Poole Associates to

          Ed Poole"?

      A.  I did not.

      Q.  Would I therefore be correct to say that there was no

          intention on your part, or rather The Pump Room's part,

          to enter into the contract directly with the

          3rd defendant?

      A.  The person we were hiring was the skills of the

          3rd defendant, but we were not entering into a contract

          with him personally, we were entering into a contract

          with Poole Associates Pte Ltd.

      Q.  Let's move on to the scope of works.

              Mr Graham, when Poole Associates were approached to

          carry out interior design works, the company was already

          committed to opening a microbrewery on site, correct?

      A.  We were committing to opening a microbrewery on site

 

11:11     essentially when we signed the final -- or received the

          final go-ahead from Clarke Quay that we had the site.

          That would be some time in April.

      Q.  In April 2000?

      A.  We were committed towards Clarke Quay in April,

          verbally, but we were committed, so, yes, before we --

          we got in touch with Mr Poole about, as I recall,

          17 April, something like that, when he was introduced to

          us, so roughly about the same time as we were going to

          be going ahead, we met Mr Poole.

      Q.  Would I be correct to say that by the time Poole

          Associates were approached by Mr Clark Martin for The

          Pump Room project, the plaintiffs, i.e. The Pump Room

          were already independently shortlisting brewing

          equipment?

      A.  We were certainly working on shortlisting brewing

          equipment.  As I recall, we had two or three possible

          sources, one was a Czech source and one was a New

          Zealand source.

              The person doing the brewing side was not me, it was

          being handled by one of our shareholders, Mr Chris

          Shelley.  Chris came to the parties because he actually

          was familiar with food and beverage processing plant, so

          my recollection is, yes, around about then we were

          checking out various types of brewing equipment.

 

11:12 Q.  And I am sure you will agree with me that brewing beer

          requires special expertise; you need the right equipment

          and knowhow in the production and storage of beer --

          yes?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And you did not have such expertise -- yes?

      A.  Absolutely, yes.  I'm good at drinking it, not making

          it.

      Q.  And that's why you hired Colin Simpson to assist with

          starting up the microbrewery; am I right to say that?

      A.  Let me be very clear what Mr Simpson is and is not;

          Mr Simpson actually worked in the same company as

          Mr Shelley, they are people who are knowledgeable about

          brewing equipment, the equipment you require to brew

          beer and about equipment generally for food and beverage

          processing, so they are people who understand the

          manufacturing process of beer and the equipment required

          to make beer.

              Does that answer the question?  Sorry?

      Q.  No.  Maybe I will rephrase it then; did The Pump Room

          engage Colin Simpson to help them start up the

          microbrewery?

      A.  Colin Simpson was a shareholder of The Pump Room, in

          a small way; as I recall, he has 10,000 shares and gave

          a 10,000 loan.  We never paid him a fee, as such, for

 

11:14     his assistance.  Colin Simpson has a full-time and very

          busy job, he was not actually working for us as

          a consultant, if that's the question.

      Q.  Was Colin Simpson the person who drew up the layout

          plans for the microbrewery?  Just to help put things in

          perspective, your Honour, if you could turn to

          Ed Poole's affidavit of evidence-in-chief,

          exhibit EDP-4.

      A.  Can you give me a page number?

      Q.  50.

      A.  Which is Ed Poole himself.

      Q.  Yes, the 1st defendant's affidavit of evidence-in-chief.

      A.  Sorry, the 1st defendant is Poole Associates.

      Q.  Poole Associates?

      A.  So it's Poole Associates.  I am looking at Ed Poole's

          himself.

      Q.  Well, it's his affidavit of evidence-in-chief, but if

          you look at the first page it's "1st defendant's

          affidavit of evidence-in-chief"?

      A.  Sorry, the number again for this one?

      Q.  Page 50, exhibit EDP-4.

      A.  I'm actually at the club --

      Q.  I think you have the wrong affidavit of

          evidence-in-chief.  There is another affidavit of

          evidence-in-chief affirmed by Mr Edward David Poole,

 

11:16     with a blue spine.

      A.  I'm looking.

      Q.  At the front page it says "1st defendant's affidavit of

          evidence-in-chief"?

      A.  My apologies, your Honour, this is quite a piano to play

          here.

      COURT:  Just take your time.

      MR TAN:  Page 50.

      COURT:  Is that the plan?

      MR TAN:  That is the final layout plan, your Honour, and

          I thought I would refer everybody to this, because it

          gives a perspective of what the project was about.

              Mr Graham, do you see that area highlighted in

          yellow?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  That area is the dining room and toilet area of The Pump

          Room?

      A.  Yes, it is.

      Q.  And, just below that, I actually have marked it, or

          I personally have highlighted it in pink, that's The

          Highlander.

              Maybe what I can do is pass this around just to show

          where The Highlander is and I will show Mr Graham as

          well.

      A.  I know this.  Are you saying that the pink is The

 

11:18     Highlander because, if you are saying that, it's not

          correct.

      Q.  Why don't you highlight The Highlander area and then

          also highlight in blue the microbrewery?

      A.  You want the microbrewery in blue?

      Q.  That's right.

      A.  And you want The Highlander in what colour?

      Q.  Pink.

      A.  The Highlander is my assessment, I don't actually know

          The Highlander.  I'm telling you what I think it is.

      Q.  Roughly, in pink.

      A.  What is missing here is there is an area of public space

          which belongs to neither The Highlander nor The Pump

          Room; are you familiar with that?

      Q.  Yes.  But if you can just mark out The Highlander area

          and the microbrewery.

      A.  I think that would be --

      Q.  Could I just get the exhibit marked out.  What I will do

          is pass it around so everybody can mark it.

              Can I now ask you to turn to page 175 of the agreed

          bundle of documents.  Page 175, your Honour, is in

          volume 2 of the agreed bundle of documents.

              At page 175 of the agreed bundle, Mr Graham -- are

          you there?

      A.  I'm there, yes.

 

11:23 Q.  There is an email from Clark Martin to Colin Simpson,

          and he is asking Colin Simpson for a file of drawings or

          layouts, so that he can pass it to Ed Poole, the

          designer.

              Now, are these drawings or layouts the drawings and

          layouts of the microbrewery which is the area that you

          have highlighted in blue?

      A.  There's two elements here; one, he's talking about the

          corridor space, which is the space heading for the riser

          room, and I have no idea why Clark is showing this to

          Colin Simpson.

      Q.  Let's go down to the email just below that, do you see

          that?  It is an email on 15 May from Colin Simpson to

          you?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Your email is lapssg@yahoo.com, right?  Is that correct,

          Mr Graham?

      A.  Yes -- no, I agree, I'm just trying to work out what the

          link is at all between this corridor and the brewery,

          because I have no idea.

      Q.  Well, if you look at the email below, would I be correct

          to say that Mr Colin Simpson was doing the layouts for

          the microbrewery?

      A.  The layouts for the microbrewery are basically done by

          NDA, the manufacturer, and Colin is helping us fit that

 

11:25     into the site here, the microbrewery itself is designed

          by NDA --

      Q.  Sorry, just to get that, how do you spell NDA?

      A.  NDA is the manufacturer of the microbrewery --

      Q.  NDA, sorry.

      A.  I have to apologise, I have absolutely no idea why Colin

          Simpson is talking about the corridor, my apologies,

          your Honour, I have no idea whatsoever.

              Colin Simpson is a full-time and very busy

          executive, working for a company called APV, he was

          a small shareholder in The Pump Room and he was giving

          us general advise on the brewery itself.

              Now somebody else has to answer the question as to

          what this is about.  Perhaps Clark can tell you, because

          I really have no idea.

      Q.  Very well.  The main thing is this; NDA were the ones

          responsible for the layout for the microbrewery, not

          Poole Associates?

              That's all I am getting at --

      A.  Can we clarify what we're talking about?  There's two

          elements in the microbrewery; one is the equipment to

          make the beer, and that has nothing to do with Mr Poole

          at all; and the other is the room to take the equipment,

          and that has everything to do with Mr Poole, because,

          basically, it's like a kitchen, you have to provide the

 

11:26     space so you can put the equipment in place, and the

          equipment has to be able to fit into the space, so you

          will see many emails between Mr Poole and other people

          talking about the layout of the brewery because he

          needed that to get the space correct.

      Q.  Who determines where to place the brewing equipment?

          NDA?

      A.  The brewing equipment -- the layout basically defines

          itself by the tanks you're trying to install and the

          space that they require.

              There is a natural flow of product from the brewing

          kettle to the fermentation -- to the maturation tanks,

          the maturation tanks need a cold room, so there is

          a flow there.  The number of maturation tanks, the

          number of fermentation tanks and the size of the brewing

          kettle determine what you have to fit into the space,

          so, I guess, basically, you take that into account and

          you define the space that you need.

              So the space, I guess, was defined between the

          various people, but, obviously, the project manager is

          the person who was putting all this together.

      Q.  No.  Who gave you the layouts for where the equipment

          was to be installed; was it NDA?

      A.  Well, no one actually gave me the layouts.  The people

          who were doing it were Mr Poole, Mr Simpson and NDA,

 

11:28     and, between them, I'm sure they worked it out, but it

          was not me.

      Q.  So you don't know?

      A.  I have no idea of anything to do with layouts at all.

          I'm sorry, I'd like to help, but I can't.

      Q.  Mr Graham, can you confirm that Poole Associates had

          nothing to do with purchasing the brewing equipment?

      A.  I can confirm that.

      Q.  And when was the brewing equipment purchased?

      A.  I believe it was purchased to be delivered in August.

          I recall there was a three-month delay, so probably by

          the end of May the order would have been placed.

          I would have to confirm that, but roughly the end

          of May.

      Q.  Roughly the end of August?

      A.  No, no.  It was to be delivered by 1 August.

      Q.  But when was it purchased?

      A.  The order was given some time, I would guess, in May.

          I would have to check that, but my recollection would be

          about May.

      Q.  So it was purchased in May and only delivered on site

          in August, am I correct to say that?

      A.  It was not delivered on site.  It was delivered to

          a warehouse and it remained on the shelves there for

          several months.

 

11:29 Q.  And who was responsible for identifying and purchasing

          the brewing equipment?

      A.  The person who was purchasing the brewing equipment was

          Christopher Shelley.

      Q.  Before The Pump Room purchased this brewing equipment,

          did anyone ask Colin Simpson, NDA, or Poole Associates,

          for that matter, whether or not it fitted into the

          overall layout plans?

      A.  The fact is that that is not a question that one has to

          ask.  We basically had agreed with Clarke Quay that we

          will install a microbrewery.  We specifically asked for

          a microbrewery that was quite compact, because of the

          space constraints and the cost of renting space there,

          and that was provided by NDA, so this was as compact

          a microbrewery as we could get, given the volume of beer

          that we wanted, and, whatever happened, it had to go in

          there because we were a microbrewery.

      Q.  Let's turn and look at page 174 of the agreed bundle of

          documents.  That is still in volume 2.

      A.  174?

      Q.  That's just the page before the email we were referring

          to earlier.

      A.  Is that volume 2?

      Q.  Volume 2, page 174.  Let's look at the email below,

          where Colin Simpson is writing to you.  Do you see at

 

11:32     paragraph 3 -- can you read that out to us?

      A.  "The area marked in blue needs reinforcing to suit

          a loading of 25 kilonewtons per metre squared to support

          the weight of the finished beer tanks... "

      Q.  Correct.  "The finished beer tanks" -- carry on reading.

      A.  "... at approximately 30,000 kilograms."

      Q.  When was this email sent to you, Mr Graham?

      A.  When?

      Q.  When?

      A.  When?  It was sent on 8 May.

      Q.  So would I be correct to say, looking at this email, as

          early as 8 May 2006, you knew that there were potential

          loading problems with the brewing tanks?

      A.  I did not know the various loading factors, but, yes, at

          or about this date, it would be clear to us that we had

          loading problems and that some work would have to be

          done.

              I would point it out that Mr Poole was already on

          board.  On a verbal basis only.

      Q.  Now, having been alerted to this loading problem, or

          potential loading problem, did you go and look for a

          structural engineer?

      A.  I personally did not.  As I say, Mr Poole was the

          project manager at this point, and I would have expected

          him to do so.

 

11:34 Q.  Let's move on to a different area.  Let's talk about

          RSP.

              When you first got involved with the Clarke Quay,

          ie the Quayside Dining Pte Ltd, or -- what's your

          restaurant again, sorry?  The Quayside Dining

          Restaurant?

      A.  The company is called Quayside Dining Pte Ltd.  The

          restaurants are called Quayside Seafood and Peony Jade.

      Q.  And that's located in Clarke Quay?

      A.  It's located in Clarke Quay.

      Q.  And when you did that, did you know that Clarke Quay had

          special conservation rules and regulations?  Were you

          aware?

      A.  I think we all do.  It's a conservation area.

      Q.  And were you aware that any plans regarding the addition

          or alteration of the premises had to be submitted to

          relevant government authorities, like BCA, URA, Fire

          Safety Bureau?

      A.  I have no idea, and I had no idea what all that meant.

          I am not in any way, shape, or form a construction

          expert.  I rely on people to advise me in this area.  At

          this moment in time I was relying on Mr Poole, and

          nobody else.

      Q.  When you did the Quayside Dining premises, were your

          plans approved by the government authorities before your

 

11:35     construction works began?

      A.  Quayside Dining is entirely al fresco.  It was handled

          by Salim Tchi Mun.  I was not involved in submitting

          plans.

      Q.  What about Peony Jade?

      A.  Peony Jade is on the second floor of a heritage shop

          house.  All of the approvals submissions were handled by

          the designer/project manager.

      Q.  But you were aware that certain submissions and

          approvals had to be obtained before construction works

          could begin?

      A.  I was absolutely unaware of the details of these.  I

          relied on experts to advise me.  I do not -- I did not

          even know what "URA" meant, or "NEA" meant, or "BCA"

          meant, or -- I have, however, gone through a rather

          painful learning process over the last couple of years,

          but to this day I forget half of the names of -- of

          these people.  I have never been directly involved

          myself with any of these people.

      Q.  I am not asking you about the details of the approvals

          and submissions; all I'm asking you is that you knew

          that approvals and plans had to be submitted to the

          authorities --

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  -- before construction works began.  Yes.  Thank you.

 

11:36         Now, Mr Graham, when you first met Poole Associates,

          you knew they were interior designers; yes?

      A.  Sorry, I never met Poole Associates.  Are you asking me

          that I met Mr Ed Poole?  When I first met Mr Ed Poole,

          did I know he was an interior designer?

      Q.  Yes.

      A.  Because I never met anyone called Poole Associates.

      Q.  Okay.  When you first met Mr Ed Poole from Poole

          Associates --

      A.  Yeah.

      Q.  -- did you know that Poole Associates were a firm of

          interior designers?

      A.  My understanding is that Poole Associates had handled

          the Brewerkz project, interior design and project

          management.  To me they were a Poole -- a company of

          interior designers and project managers.

      Q.  Did Clark Martin ever introduce them as

          Singapore-qualified architects or structural engineers?

      A.  I don't think you would actually introduce people in

          that way.  What I knew of Poole Associates -- and as you

          can see in their web site and as you can see on their

          contracts -- is that Mr Poole identifies himself as an

          architect in three different countries.  One is in

          America; one is in Australia; and he also claims to be

          an associate -- I believe that's the phrase -- of the

 

11:38     Singapore Institute of Architects.  So was presented to

          me as an extremely well qualified and knowledgeable

          individual who has been --

      Q.  Yes, but --

      A.  -- let me finish --

      Q.  -- was he introduced to you as a Singapore-qualified

          architect or structural engineer?

      A.  -- who has been in Singapore for 16 years, and therefore

          must extremely familiar with the Singapore laws.  No one

          said to me, "This is Mr Poole, and he is a fully

          qualified Singapore architect."  Nobody said that.

      Q.  Nobody told you that Mr Poole or Poole Associates were a

          Singapore-qualified architect or structural engineer?

      A.  He was never introduced to me as a Singapore-qualified

          architect; correct.

      Q.  Did Poole Associates --

      A.  What I assumed was perhaps that he was, but no one

          actually said to me that he was.

      Q.  Did Clark ever inform you that Poole Associates could

          submit drawings to the government authorities and obtain

          the -- (simultaneous speakers - unclear) --

      A.  -- my understanding of what Poole Associate could or

          could not do was basically on the ASIA comment, and I

          agree that one can take that as being an associate.  If

          he is unable to submit drawings, it's a very simple

 

11:39     solution:  He hires somebody who can.  And that was his

          job.  As project manger, if he is unable to do

          something, then he has to hire specialists.  It is

          actually in his contract, as I understand it.

      Q.  So am I correct to say, therefore, that from the

          beginning, you knew that Poole Associates couldn't

          submit drawings to the government authorities?

      A.  Poole Associates, from the beginning, could appoint

          someone to submit drawings to the government.  From the

          beginning.

      Q.  I'm not asking them whether he could appoint someone;

          I'm asking them, did you know that -- whether or not

          they could do it themselves?

      A.  Did I know?  I did not know.

      Q.  So there is really no basis to assume that Poole

          Associates could submit drawings, isn't it, to the

          government authorities?

      A.  I didn't know whether they could or could not.  What I

          did know is they should have done so, because they were

          the project managers, and it was up to them to organise

          it to be done.

      Q.  Let me take you to your affidavit, Mr Graham.  Let's

          look at paragraph 32 of your affidavit.

      A.  Your Honour, I am very slow; I do apologise.  I will get

          there.

 

11:40 COURT:  Are you on the same point?  Are you on the same

          point or going to something --

      MR TAN:  I am still on the same point, your Honour.  But

          perhaps, if Mr Vijay would like a break now, we could

          take a short recess of five minutes, your Honour?

      COURT:  Is it convenient for you to have a break?

      MR TAN:  That's fine, your Honour.

      MR VIJAY:  Can we have ten minutes' break?  I promised this.

      COURT:  Yes, sure.

              We will adjourn for five, ten minutes.

      (11.41 am)

      MR TAN:  Now, Mr Graham, before the break, we were talking

          about RSP and their scope of work.  In particular,

          submission of plans and drawings.

              Let's turn and look at page 115 of your affidavit.

          That's where Ed Poole's -- or rather Poole Associates'

          contract is set out.  If you look right at the last

          paragraph there, and if I can just read out:

              "Services for the preparation of submission drawings

          to any authorities, are not included in our fee as our

          outlined herein, nor are the services of a registered

          architect to certify and stamp these submission drawings

          if required.  Full interior drawings in digital format

          will be issued to the submitting Architect, which may be

          altered as required."

 

11:58         Do you accept that it was not Poole Associates'

          responsibility to submit drawings?

      A.  I accept that given that they are not able to submit

          drawings, it cannot be taken as their responsibility.

          My argument would be that they have a responsibility for

          making sure drawings are submitted by someone who is

          competent to do so.

      Q.  And in fact --

      A.  I believe that is covered by another clause in his

          contract.

      Q.  And in fact, Mr Graham, as early as May 2006, before the

          contract was signed, you knew that Poole Associates

          couldn't submit drawings, isn't it?

      A.  I have no recollection of knowing or not knowing that.

          But --

      Q.  Let's take a look at paragraph 32 of your affidavit.

      A.  I'm actually looking for it.  Page 32?

      Q.  Page 16, paragraph 32.

      A.  Page 16.

      Q.  Can you read that paragraph out.

      A.  "On or around late May 2006 we learned that Ed Poole was

          not qualified, to make the necessary submissions for

          approvals for URA in spite of his 16 years in Singapore.

          We therefore had to engage the services of one RSP a

          firm of architects, to facilitate the application for

 

11:59     the relevant permits."

      Q.  So you knew as early as May 2006 that Poole

          Associates --

      A.  Late --

      Q.  -- could not submit drawings?

      A.  Late May.

      Q.  And the person or the firm responsible for submitting

          the drawings would be RSP Architects, whom you have

          hired or engaged; correct?

      A.  The reason we chose RSP Architects --

      Q.  Answer the question first.  Yes or no?

      A.  RSP were hired to undertake this.

      Q.  I want you to look at paragraph 31 of your affidavit,

          just above that.  I only need you to read the last

          sentence of that paragraph.

      A.  "It was disappointing when we learned that Ed Poole made

          no applications at all in July or August 2006".

      Q.  And when you mean "applications", you mean submissions

          of drawings; yes?  In your affidavit here?

      A.  I would say applications for approvals.  The actual

          process is not -- not within my remit.

      Q.  And the application can only be submitted if the

          drawings are submitted through the architects; yes?

      A.  With due respect, what I'm requesting Mr Poole do is

          organise for the submissions.  He is the project

 

12:00     manager.

      Q.  No --

      A.  Whether he submits personally or whether he organises

          for the submission, there is no one else in our team

          remotely capable of doing anything in this area.  He is

          the only person with any knowledge whatsoever.  I am

          entirely reliant on him.

      Q.  What about RSP Architects, whom you have hired,

          Mr Graham?

      A.  I have -- we have hired them to proceed with it, but it

          should have been Mr Poole who organised the hiring of

          them, and it should be Mr Poole who monitored an

          controlled them.  Certainly not me.  I had no idea what

          to do.

      Q.  No, the point is, in May 2006, you knew Poole Associates

          couldn't submit drawings; that's why you hired RSP.

          Yes?  It must be.  That's in your affidavit.

      A.  I hired RSP -- or the company hired RSP -- to do this.

          The disappointing thing is it was not done through

          Mr Poole.

      Q.  But that was in July or August 2006, Mr Graham.  My

          point is this -- and I'll get to it, so we avoid

          ding-donging here -- there was no reason for you to feel

          disappointed that Poole Associates had not submitted the

          applications in July/August, and the reason for that is

 

12:01     because it was RSP Architects' duties.  Do you agree or

          disagree?

      A.  I disagree entirely.  Mr Poole was project manager.  The

          contract was signed in July and August.  He was

          responsibility entirely -- my goodness -- for handling

          all of this.  None of us were.  I am ignorant.

          Mr Martin is ignorant.  Only Mr Poole, in the entire

          team, was qualified to control this and monitor this.

          And Mr Poole did not do it.  And he was there with a

          signed contract at that point in time, and that contract

          specifies that he is to take care of the other

          consultants.

      Q.  So if there were any delay in the submissions of plans

          and drawings, and consequently approval for works to

          begin, RSP, and not Poole Associates, should be

          responsible for it; yes?

      A.  I disagree.

      Q.  All right.  Let's move on, then.  Let's move on to

          structural works.

              Did you know that structural works were not within

          Poole Associates' scope of works as well?  Did you know

          that Poole Associates were not structural engineers?

      A.  Whether they are or are not structural engineers is I

          think a point --

      Q.  Answer the question first.

 

12:03 A.  -- of evidence.

      Q.  Answer the question first.

      A.  I know Poole Associates are architects.  I know Poole

          Associates are the project manager.  I know Poole

          Associates are the only people who are qualified to deal

          with technical items.  And therefore I expected Poole

          Associates to appoint appropriate consultants, and

          manage those consultants, as part of the project

          management responsibility.

      Q.  I don't think you have answered my question.  Do you

          know that Poole Associates what were not structural

          engineers?  Yes or no?  It's a simple question.

      A.  I have no idea of the individual -- how can I put it --

          qualifications of everybody in Poole Associates.  The

          only personal I met was Mr Poole, and he is not a

          structural engineer.

              So I agree, to my knowledge, there was no one in

          Poole Associates who was a structural engineer.

      Q.  Let's look at page 116 of your affidavit of

          evidence-in-chief.  And I'm going back to the contract

          now.

              116, let me read it out:

              "Should consultancy services be required from other

          consultants, such as an Architect, Quantity Surveyor,

          M&E Engineer, Structural Engineer, kitchen, acoustical,

 

12:04     lighting or graphics Consultant, their fees will be in

          addition to those outlined herein."

              My point is this:  Isn't it clear from this that

          Poole Associates were not structural engineers, and the

          work that they had undertaken was not structural

          engineering works?

      A.  I am not arguing that they are or are not structural

          engineers.  Insofar as structural engineering work was

          concerned, it was the project manager's job to make sure

          that appropriate people were engaged to undertake that

          work; not to sit there and say, "I'm not a structural

          engineer, so I won't do anything."

      Q.  Do you confirm that you had engaged RPS Architects as

          structural engineers in July 2006?

      A.  Sorry, would you repeat the question?

      Q.  Did you engage RSP Architects as the structural

          engineers in July 2006?

      A.  I believe so.

      Q.  Was their scope of works to do the drawings and prepare

          the structural -- or rather to prepare the structural

          drawings for the structural works, including

          micro-piling on the project site?

      A.  I believe so, yes.

      Q.  Were their responsibility to obtain the permits to carry

          out structural works at the project?

 

12:05 A.  I believe so, yes.

      Q.  And it was also their duty to ensure that the structural

          works were carried out in accordance with the approved

          drawings; yes?

      A.  I believe so, yes.

      Q.  Okay.  Did you know that these structural drawings,

          Mr Graham, were only issued in October 2006?

      A.  I'm aware of a great degree of correspondence between

          Mr Poole and RSP.  I'm aware of great deal of bad

          feeling between them --

      Q.  Did you know that the drawings --

      A.  -- and I'm aware that there were severe delays caused to

          the submission of the drawings by the inadequacies of

          Mr Poole.

      Q.  Did you know that the structural drawings were only

          confirmed in October 2006?

      A.  There were --

      Q.  Yes or no?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And am I correct to say that the bulk of structural

          works had to do with the micro-piling, which was needed

          to support the brewing vats?

      A.  Absolutely.

      Q.  Am I also correct to say that the permit for the

          structural works was only issued in November 2006?

 

12:07 A.  That is correct.

      Q.  So would you agree with me that having engaged

          RSP Architects in July 2006 to carry out the structural

          works, if there was any delay in the preparation of the

          drawings, these were RSP's problems, not Poole

          Associates'?

      A.  May I refer you to page 104 of --

      Q.  Can you just answer the question before you do that?

      A.  My answer is no, and I'm referring you to page 104 to

          show you why.

              If you go to the second-last paragraph, it says as

          follows:

              "Poole Associates Private Limited will co-ordinate

          with the consulting" --

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Sorry, if I can check with the witness:

          Are you referring to page 104 of your affidavit?

      A.  I am, yes.  My apologies; I'm perhaps getting a little

          excited.

              My apologies, your Honour, if I'm getting a

          little --

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, I don't want to get the

          witness misleading himself, but if he looks -- I think

          page 104 belongs to a contract for Cafe Society, which

          starts at page 98.  It may be the same term, but --

      A.  It's exactly the same -- I'm trying to find Poole

 

12:08     Associates.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  It's okay.

      A.  Can we find Poole Associates' contract?

              I need the Poole Associates contract, Vijay.  The

          same paragraph.

      COURT:  Which sentence are you reading?

      A.  What I was reading, your Honour, on page 104 --

      MR TAN:  Poole Associates -- just to help you, Poole

          Associates' contract with The Pump Room starts at 110.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  And the same page is at 119, Mr. Graham.

      A.  Thank you very much.

              It says:

              "Poole Associates Private Limited will co-ordinate

          with the consulting engineers and architects, if any, in

          the compilation and analysis of data relevant to the

          respective disciplines and the project as a whole."

              That is what we expected Mr Poole do, and that is

          what he manifestly, repeatedly, and endlessly failed to

          do.

      MR TAN:  But you would also agree with me that he did not

          undertake the structural works, based on just this

          reading?

      A.  He is not there to undertake everything.  He is there to

          ensure that everything is done properly by the

          appropriate people.

 

12:09 COURT:  Do we have any evidence before us whether the

          structural engineers were late, or ...?

      A.  There were quite a few documents, which I believe are in

          evidence, showing disputes between Mr Poole and the

          structural engineers.  The drawings submitted by

          Mr Poole, according to the structural engineers, were

          not adequate to be put forward to the relevant

          authorities, and there were some very vociferous emails

          back and forth on that subject.

      MR TAN:  I should point out, your Honour, this has never

          been pleaded, nor has it been raised in any of the

          evidence in the affidavit.

      A.  I have to ask for some support from Vijay in finding the

          document.  It's from RSP Architects, and it's

          criticising Mr Poole.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, we have disclosed these documents to

          the other parties here, and I believe Eugene has made

          a bundle of others --

      COURT:  Yes, but is it part of your case, as pleaded?

      MR VIJAY:  Yes, your Honour, it would be, so I will just

          make a quick bundle of those.  It is very voluminous, so

          I didn't want to chuck everything in.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, is my learned friend referring

          to the last-minute --

      MR VIJAY:  RSP, yes.

 

12:11 MR SREENIVASAN:  -- RSP documents, which my learned friend

          specifically said in his letter will not be referred to

          by the plaintiffs?  Because that is a covering letter

          that came to us, and so when I referred to it, I said,

          "Okay, Mr Vijay doesn't want to refer to it, and it's

          not part of the plaintiff's case; I don't need to bother

          about it."

              Is that the bundle?

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, that -- we had one voluminous

          document from RSP.  I have made it available to

          everyone.  I didn't have time go through, but -- I was

          not going to mess up, but having gone through the last

          weekend, there are some relevant ones, and mostly in

          view of what the witness says, he wants to refer to

          them, I can have them quickly organised, your Honour --

          (simultaneous speakers - unclear) --

      MR SREENIVASAN:  -- I think the question -- my learned

          friend --

      MR VIJAY:  Full disclosure has been made.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  -- they will not be referring to.  If it is

          in that bundle, I will go and look at it again.

      MR VIJAY:  We have given disclosure of them.  Yes, we took

          the original position, not relevant.  But the last

          weekend, we went through; there are a few that we need

          to refer to, in light of exactly what the witness said,

 

12:11     your Honour.

      COURT:  All right.  Let's move on.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  So it's not in evidence, your Honour,

          because it's not in an agreed bundle.  It has been

          expressly put forward on the basis that it will not be

          referred to as part of the plaintiff's case.  There has

          been no amendment to AEICs, and there has been no

          amendment to pleadings.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, basically they wanted me to compile

          a document which I think will be this thick --

      COURT:  Either you arrange for it to be admitted, or else --

      MR VIJAY:  I will arrange for it to be admitted, your

          Honour.

      COURT:  All right.

      MR TAN:  Let me move on, your Honour.

              Let's deal with mechanical and electrical works,

          otherwise known as M&E works.

              Do you agree also that it is not Poole Associates'

          scope of works to prepare the M&E drawings?

      A.  I am not qualified to comment on whose scope of work any

          of this is.  I am not in any way, shape, or form an

          expert.  I leave it to the project manager, Mr Poole, to

          take this forward.  I did not sit there and say, "Who is

          responsible for what?"  The project manager is

          responsible for the project in its entirety, and insofar

 

12:13     as there are experts needed, he should be the person

          monitoring and controlling them.  I do not have the

          skill to do that.  That is why we hired a project

          manager.

      COURT:  The problem here is, Mr Vijay, you have to make it

          quite clear.  Someone may be the project manager, but if

          the architect and the engineer delay, the -- you must

          show, right, that this is the fault of --

      MR VIJAY:  The burden is on them, if they are pushing the

          responsibility or the blame to anybody else.

      COURT:  No, no, no, you are saying that he is responsible

          for not -- ensuring that there is no delay.

      MR VIJAY:  Yes, your Honour.

      COURT:  So you've got to show that your guys were ready and

          he was responsible.  Supposing you hired an architect --

          and I'm not talking about this particular architect --

          supposing you hire an architect who is slow, all right?

          The project manager, if he writes all the letters and

          shows that he has done his job, are you holding him

          responsible for the delay?

      MR VIJAY:  If he can show that he has written all the

          letters, then --

      COURT:  I'm just giving you the best scenario.

      MR VIJAY:  Yes, your Honour.

      COURT:  In this case, my question is, were the architects

 

12:14     slow?  Were the M&E guys slow in submitting, in

          finishing their work?  Nothing is before us on that.

          Somebody must be responsible; all right?  But his point

          that he is responsible as a coordinator.

      MR VIJAY:  Yes.

      COURT:  But a coordinator is not responsible for delays

          effected by other people all the time.  So we must see

          what was the cause of the delay.

      MR VIJAY:  Yes, your Honour.

      COURT:  So supposing the structural engineer says that there

          is a delay because you changed your specifications; then

          somebody has got to be responsible for that.  It can't

          be the project manager if a client changes the

          specifications.

      A.  Your Honour, may I add a comment --

      COURT:  Yes.

      A.  -- as to why Mr Poole is responsible?

      COURT:  Sure.

      A.  There are two reasons why we had delays.  One reason was

          because of the complexity of this micro-piling,

          requiring --

      MR VIJAY:  Who is responsible for the complexity?

      A.  The second reason was a little bit different, your

          Honour.  The reason we certainly were able to go,

          towards the end of August, early September, was because

 

12:15     it was realised, after four months, that there was a

          very simple solution to all of these approvals.

      COURT:  That's a different point entirely.

      A.  But it removed the need to get the approvals, and it

          allowed us to proceed with the restaurant.  Mr Poole sat

          on this case for four months and did not come up with

          the simple solution of dividing the restaurant and the

          microbrewery as two separate projects.  This is a very,

          very simple solution --

      COURT:  Now, now --

      A.  -- that a man of his talent should have known

          immediately.

      COURT:  Now, are you alleging negligence?  Then you bring

          evidence to show that project managers would know how to

          do this.  You have to show some evidence.  You cannot

          just allege -- he is talking about a different point

          entirely.  That's why I say you all have to organise

          your case properly.  It's in his affidavit; I'm aware of

          that.  The simple solution -- (simultaneous speakers -

          unclear) --

      A.  The solution was found --

      COURT:  But that's a different thing entirely.

      A.  My apologies.  I have not --

      COURT:  That's a different thing entirely.  Mr Tan is

          talking about all the structural plans, et cetera.

 

12:16 MR VIJAY:  Yes.

      COURT:  What was the cause of the delay?  Somebody must

          explain to me, what was the cause of the delay?  I know

          you are alleging that he is the project coordinator --

      MR VIJAY:  Yes.

      COURT:  -- but were there problems in the preparation of the

          plans?  Otherwise, you're holding a project manager

          responsible if you have hired a lousy structural

          engineer -- I'm not talking about this engineer; I'm

          talking about generally.

      MR VIJAY:  There was a series of correspondences which are

          in the bundle we --

      COURT:  What do they prove?

      MR VIJAY:  They prove that the architects were writing to Ed

          Poole to say that -- you know, "These can't be

          submitted, do this, do that", and he was arguing with

          them and so on and so forth, your Honour.  That's what

          he -- I believe the witness --

      COURT:  Well, what's wrong with an interior designer arguing

          with an architect over plans?  Architects are not always

          right; interior designers are not always right.

      A.  The question that I'm referring to is that Mr Poole was

          trying to maintain our position of eliminating the

          corridor between the Pump Room and The Highlander, and

          the architect was saying, "This will never pass URA;

 

12:18     please do not do that."  And the argument went on for

          some time.

      COURT:  This is all evidence from the --

      MR VIJAY:  We have given reasons for delaying the affidavit,

          your Honour.

      COURT:  Are you calling them as witnesses?

      MR TAN:  They are not calling RSP, your Honour.

      MR VIJAY:  They have refused to come as witnesses.

      COURT:  Are you accepting all that at face value, without

          examining?

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, I come back to my earlier

          position, which is why I said my learned friend admits

          the document.  If I can touch on the genesis of the RSP

          documents, it is our case -- which is my understanding

          from discussing with Mr Ong -- that normally, for

          construction delay, to look at the critical path.

      COURT:  Yes.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  And the critical path in this case that

          really messed things up was the micro-piling, which

          means structural comes -- becomes very important.  There

          were no structural documents, no structural drawings,

          that were disclosed.  So we asked for that.  And once

          they were disclosed -- and as my learned friend said,

          they were disclosed, but very late in the day, which is

          why Mr Tan needed the first day off to look at it -- I

 

12:19     took the position, unlike Mr Tan, that I didn't need to

          look at it carefully, because if you are not calling RSP

          to admit those documents, if you don't call the maker, I

          just will put you to strict proof.  So you want to call

          -- you want to put those documents in, you have to call

          RSP.

              Since my learned friend then put it in his letter

          that they would not be referring to those documents,

          those documents are not in play.  If my learned friend

          then wants to cross-examine Ed Poole on it and say,

          "This is what RSP told you, this is what RSP told you",

          he can try; but then I will make the submission at the

          end of the day.

              If they now want to bring RSP in, then we will be

          best cross-examining RSP on it.  Insofar as the

          schematic of work is concerned, I mean, architects or

          IDs do their architectural drawings -- and this is

          common knowledge -- it then goes to a structural

          engineer, who comes up with the structural drawing.  In

          a perfect world, the architectural drawing is supported

          by a structural drawing, and you go on.  In the normal

          world, that structural engineer is going to come back

          and tell the architect, "It can't be done.  Go and

          change."

              For example, if an architect puts a suspended ball

 

12:20     in the middle of this room with no means of support, the

          structural engineer is going to tell him, "Sorry, we

          can't design a structure for that."  Or if the architect

          puts a huge 20-ton marble standing on a 2-inch-wide

          concrete beam, then again, the structural engineer is

          going to tell him, "Mr Architect, it can't be done."

              So there is a to'ing and fro'ing.  Or, as my learned

          friend seems to suggest, it could be that Ed Poole

          designed something impossible to implement.  It could be

          either.  Or it could be, as this witness has quite

          accurately and honestly pointed out, if you have to put

          all this brewing equipment into this particular space,

          then your floor loading, in terms of kilonewtons per

          metre, would have certain impacts.

              I don't know.  But if RSP is not called, and we have

          Mr Graham's evidence, then we have got no engineering

          evidence, we have got no claims evidence, we have got

          nobody who has given evidence of what is the critical

          path, then I think Mr Vijay has a problem.

      COURT:  All right.

              Mr Tan, continue.

      MR VIJAY:  I'll leave it to -- whatever I say will be --

      COURT:  By all means.  If you want to respond to

          Mr Sreeni --

      MR SREENIVASAN:  I don't mind if you prompt your witness --

 

12:21     by accident, not deliberately.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, the correspondences between RSP and

          Ed Poole will make things -- I think they are quite

          clear, and they will speak for themselves, I believe.

              As to whether, as a project manager, he can just

          blame it on RSP, again, I believe our clients have

          evidence, and the documents will make it clear.  These

          are documents we got it last minute --

      COURT:  Who is alleging delay?

      MR VIJAY:  My client, your Honour.

      COURT:  You have to prove it.

      MR VIJAY:  And we are proving that -- we are establishing

          that at the end of the day, the project manager,

          Ed Poole's responsibility.

      COURT:  Why?

      MR VIJAY:  It was he who was supposed to coordinate

          everything and put everything in -- first of all, draw

          up a milestone chart, which never existed; appoint --

          his contract says appoint an engineer, whoever you need,

          and the charges to be separate; he never did.  So the

          clients were left to go look for an architect because he

          couldn't submit, so they had somebody coming in to

          submit; then he -- then --

      COURT:  Your clients knew that there was no architect, as

          Mr Tan said, before the contract was signed.

 

12:23 MR VIJAY:  There was no -- he was aware subsequently that

          Ed Poole was not qualified to make submissions.

      COURT:  Why do you use the word "subsequently"; it is before

          the contract has been -- (simultaneous speakers -

          unclear) --

      MR VIJAY:  -- before the contract --

      COURT:  So why do you use the word "subsequently"?

      MR VIJAY:  Subsequent to their first meetings and

          discussions, or whatever --

      COURT:  No, no, no, let's get -- (simultaneous speakers -

          unclear) --

      MR VIJAY:  Okay.  Yes.

      COURT:  -- the pleaded case.  This complaint about him not

          being an architect is irrelevant, because --

      MR VIJAY:  It is irrelevant, your Honour.  He is a project

          manager here.

      COURT:  Yes, he --

      MR VIJAY:  Yes.

      COURT:  Your clients knew already, before the contract was

          signed, and that's the only contract you have pleaded --

          (simultaneous speakers - unclear) --

      MR VIJAY:  -- I don't want to say too much, because I would

          be giving -- literally giving the evidence.  But just

          bear with me.  All I will say is this:  The emails, the

          documents will clearly show --

 

12:23 COURT:  I am not questioning you.  I asked Mr Tan to

          continue; you popped up to speak.

      MR VIJAY:  Okay.  I don't want to be --

      COURT:  Don't worry.  Let's move on.

      MR TAN:  Okay.  I'll just quickly wrap up on this M&E issue.

          Can you please look at the first defendant's bundle of

          documents, page 68.

              Now -- you are not there yet?

      A.  I'm working on it.

              The first is the affidavit.

      Q.  It's a blue-spined document with a beige cover on the

          front.

      A.  A beige cover on the front.  This one here?

      Q.  Yes.

      A.  Where do I go?

      Q.  If you look at the bottom half of that page, it is an

          email from Shaharin Abas Koh.  Shaharin Abas Koh is the

          plaintiff's general manager?

      A.  Basically the restaurant manager.  He did not handle the

          brewery, he did not handle the kitchen.

      Q.  If you look at that email, you will see that he

          basically spells out the introduction of Project

          Portfolio Engineering, who are the M&E engineers?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And the scope of works that they had to undertake,

 

12:25     correct?  So these works were done within Poole

          Associates's scope of works, just to confirm that,

          air-conditioning and --

      A.  Monitoring of these through the monitoring of the other

          experts are very much part of the project manager's

          scope of work.

              Mr Shaharin Abas Koh is a man who runs a restaurant.

          He has no idea what this means whatsoever.  The expert

          that we had on board from basically the beginning of May

          until the end of August, the only expert we had on

          board, the person we relied on entirely is Mr Poole.

              So Mr Abas Koh, the restaurant manager, is not in

          the business of appointing M&E engineers.  He had to do

          it because we were not given the support that we were

          looking for from Mr Poole.

      Q.  But it appears that your restaurant manager knows more

          about M&E works than you do.  He has actually spelled

          out the M&E works here?

      A.  Well, frankly, everybody on the planet knows more about

          M&E works than I do, but he did not spell it out.  It

          was spelled out for him, I presume, by the experts,

          certainly not by Mr Poole.

      Q.  Very well.  Let's move on.  Can you also confirm,

          Mr Graham, that the M&E drawings were only issued

          in September 2006?

 

12:27 A.  I think that is a matter of fact and I'm prepared --

      Q.  The answer is yes.

      A.  I would accept your comment on that.

      Q.  Let's now move on to your pet topic, project management,

          shall we?

              In your affidavit you have given evidence or you

          have claimed that Poole Associates has been engaged as

          project manager before.  Which projects are these?

      A.  I believe he was a project manager for Cafe Society,

          I believe he was a project manager for China Jump,

          I believe he was a project manager for The Highlander.

      Q.  The Highlander as well, okay.  And the basis of your

          belief is?

      A.  His standard contract says that he is in fact the

          project manager, and this is a contract that apparently

          he uses for every project of this nature.

      Q.  So that is your only source of belief, am I correct?

          Nobody else has told you that Poole Associates has acted

          as project manager before?

      A.  I have no other experience of Poole Associates except

          the unfortunate experience I have had through this

          company.

      Q.  No, but my point is nobody has told you that Poole

          Associates have acted as project managers before?

      A.  It is standard in the industry.  I have never seen

 

12:28     a project for a restaurant, and I have to admit my

          limitations are only six or seven or eight or even ten

          restaurants, I have never seen one where the ID was not

          the project manager, it is endemic.  This is a small

          business, a small project and, in my experience, the

          idea has always been the project manager.

              Now has somebody come to me and said, "Ed Poole is

          a great project manager and he did that"?  No.

      Q.  So Clark Martin never told that you Poole Associates

          were his project manager in his other projects?

      A.  Yes, he did.

      Q.  I just asked you whether anyone told you that Poole

          Associates had acted as project manager.

      A.  And I mentioned the ones -- I mentioned them, Cafe

          Society, I mentioned China Jump.  These are Clark

          Martin's projects.  Those are the only ones I know of

          and Clark Martin specifically told me that Ed Poole was

          project manager.

              It was also implied, but I have to say it, nothing

          in writing, that he was the project manager for

          Brewerkz, but I have no way of proving that one way or

          the other, and one of the reasons why we hired him was

          because of his experience with Brewerkz.

      Q.  So let's recap; your source of belief that Poole

          Associates had acted as project manager is two; one is

 

12:30     that it's standard terms of contract -- yes?  Yes?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  The second basis is that Clark Martin told you

          specifically that he had engaged Poole Associates as

          project manager?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  I'm going to show that you're wrong on both accounts.

              Did you leave Mr Clark Martin to negotiate the

          contract with Poole Associates?

      A.  I left Mr Clark Martin to negotiate the price.  I said,

          "Can you get a discount off the 75,000?"

      Q.  You didn't ask him to negotiate on the terms and

          conditions, did you?

      A.  I did not.

      Q.  Isn't it correct when Clark Martin first introduced

          Poole Associates to you, they were introduced as

          a designer, not a project manager?

      A.  Every individual in this industry is called the

          designer.  No one goes around saying "the designer and

          project manager", "the designer and project manager".

          It is much more elegant, it is much more prestigious to

          be a designer.  Everybody wants to be a designer and,

          therefore, one always refers to them as "the designer".

              Project management, unfortunately, because it's

          a sadly underestimated activity, doesn't have the same

 

12:31     status as "designer" and, therefore, one always calls

          Tchi Mun of Salim Tchi Mun "the designer", we always

          call May Ann of Cubic Deco -- or whatever, we call her

          "the designer", and we have always called Mr Poole "the

          designer".

              But the fact is, in every single restaurant I have

          ever seen, the designer is always the ID, because simply

          there is no reasonable alternative.

      Q.  No reasonable alternative?

      A.  To my mind there's no reasonable alternative for a small

          project like this.

      Q.  Wouldn't you agree with me that if the designer says,

          "Project management is not part of my scope of works",

          he doesn't have to carry out project management?

      A.  Frankly, anything this small, to hire an independent

          project manager is not reasonable.  The idea is so

          influential on choice of everything, on selection of

          suppliers, on making the thing work, that to actually

          have two separate jobs for a half million or

          1 million-dollar project is unthinkable, and certainly

          to me it's unthinkable.

              I stress repeatedly, I am not an expert, but I have

          never seen it and certainly my expectations were

          categoric, Mr Poole was our project manager and from

          day 1 and, if you look, he is writing to the people

 

12:32     dealing with the brewery, he is writing to the people

          dealing with the kitchen, he is writing to everybody, he

          is performing his project management function.

              He was not the designer, he was the designer and

          project manager, and I think the documentation is

          categorically clear on that.

      Q.  Categorically you say that.  It is a bold statement.  We

          will take you on on it.

              Let's take a look at Clark Martin's affidavit of

          evidence-in-chief.  Look at paragraph 7 of Clark

          Martin's affidavit of evidence-in-chief, in the second

          volume of the plaintiff's bundle of affidavits.  At the

          first tab there you will see it.

              Let's look at paragraph 6, okay?  Now, Mr Clark

          Martin in paragraph 6 is referring to Ed Poole as the

          designer for Cafe Society and The Highlander, do you

          agree with that?

      A.  I have repeated to you that Mr Martin has personally

          assured me that Ed Poole was the project manager for

          every one of these projects.

              I have stated that it is common parlance to use the

          words "designer" as a shorthand, an elevated status

          shorthand, when referring to people like Mr Poole.

              If you are asking me does this say that Ed Poole was

          a designer, yes, Ed Poole was a designer is what is

 

12:34     written here.

      Q.  And if you take a look at page 62 of your affidavit of

          evidence-in-chief.

      A.  Of Clark Martin?

      Q.  Of your affidavit of evidence-in-chief, at page 62, this

          is an email on 16 April 2006 from Clark Martin to both

          you and Chris Shelley, and do you see the last paragraph

          of that email?

      A.  "The designer, Ed Poole", that one?

      Q.  Yes.  Clark Martin is also referring to Ed Poole as the

          designer, not as --

      A.  We all refer to Ed Poole as the designer.  That's what

          he wants to be referred to as, because design is -- but

          the fact is, when you analyse the documents, he didn't

          just do the design, he was actively involved in dealing

          with the brewery, with the kitchen, he was actively

          involved in dealing with RSP, he was actively involved

          in dealing with everybody.

              He was the project manager, and there was nobody

          else around remotely qualified to be project manager.

          There was only Mr Poole.  And had Mr Poole said to us,

          "Where is the project manager", we would have hired one.

      Q.  Well, my point to you is, Mr Graham, you knew right from

          the beginning that Poole Associates were being

          approached for designing work and not project

 

12:35     management -- "yes" or "no"?

      A.  Absolutely not.

      Q.  And this issue of project management was only fabricated

          in February 2007 when Poole Associates were chasing for

          payback, do you agree or disagree?

      A.  I disagree.

      Q.  Let's take a look at the contract again --

      A.  Mr Poole's contract?

      Q.  Mr Poole's contract -- well, Poole Associates's

          contract, at page 118 of your affidavit.  Read the first

          line -- read it.

      A.  "Poole Associates Pte Ltd will meet with the

          client's project manager" --

      Q.  Let's stop there, "will meet with the client's project

          manager" -- did you see that when you signed the

          contract?

      A.  I did indeed.

      Q.  You did?

      A.  At that moment in time, I was the client's project

          manager.  This is amusing, but, in fact, the term

          "project manager" is project coordinator.  It's

          something which is regularly given to various people,

          consultant, project coordinator or whatever.

              The client's project manager was Mr Shaharin, it was

          me, at one point, it was my wife.  There's only one

 

12:37     qualified project manager, and that is Mr Poole, and

          there are 20 paragraphs in this same contract which

          specifically assign project management responsibility to

          him.

              This is just a little -- it's just how we

          co-ordinate with the client.  If you read it, there's 20

          different areas where Mr Poole is undertaking to do

          project management work and Mr Poole, to a greater or

          lesser degree, did try to do that.

      Q.  Let's take your statement from that.  You were the

          project manager at that point in time?

      A.  I was the person in the client with whom he was

          co-ordinating and, therefore, I was handling the project

          within the client at that moment in time.

      Q.  No, were you The Pump Room's project manager prior to

          the signing of this contract?  Let's deal with it one

          step at a time.

              Prior to the signing of this contract, were you the

          client's project manager -- sorry -- The Pump Room --

      A.  I was the person within the -- let me be very specific

          with what I'm saying here; the person within the company

          with whom our official designer and project manager has

          to co-ordinate is the client's project manager.  He has

          no business trying to duplicate, second guess or

          otherwise undermine the responsibility of Mr Poole to do

 

12:38     the technical work of project management.

      Q.  Answer my question.  My question is; were you the

          client's or The Pump Room's project manager --

      A.  I was the point of contact.  I was not project

          management, managing in the sense of being

          a professional qualified project manager for

          a construction project.  No one in The Pump Room was

          ever thus qualified.

      Q.  Let's deal with this contract.  This contract is moving

          forward, not talking about the past.

              It says here:

              "Poole Associates Pte Ltd will meet with the

          client's project manager."

              Surely a plain reading of that envisages that,

          throughout the course of the contact, moving forward,

          Poole Associates would meet with the project manager and

          not that he was undertaking the project management --

          yes?

      A.  The contract is extremely specific on exactly what

          Mr Poole was undertaking, and those specificities are

          the guts of project management.

      Q.  Okay.

      A.  These are specifics, not generalities.  He specifically

          undertook many, many areas where he materially failed to

          perform, and I'm sure we will be going through those in

 

12:39     great detail.

      Q.  And, having seen this, when you signed the contract, you

          then went ahead to engage a project manager, C&P

          Contracts Consulting?

      A.  Can we get some timing clear?  I sent the contract in

          early July.  Mr Poole was working with us from

          early May.  By the time we got an individual to come and

          help us with the catastrophe we were facing in terms of

          getting things organised, it was late August.

              This was four months after we have started.

      Q.  So early after you signed the contract?

      A.  Two months after I signed the contract.

      Q.  Let's take at look C&P's contract, shall we?

      A.  Can you give me the reference?  Is it 140?

      Q.  That's page 137 of your affidavit.

              This contract is dated 21 August 2006.  Do you agree

          with me that you were looking for a project manager as

          early as early August 2006, and, if you want, I will

          refer you to the email in question.

      A.  Is it the one from Shaharin to me, talking about Mr Fred

          Wong?

      Q.  That's correct.

      A.  That email is a very specific email as I recall.  What

          it is saying is we are struggling with this micro-piling

          and there is someone that I think Mr Shelley has met who

 

12:41     has some ideas on whether or not micro-piling is

          necessary, so perhaps we can avoid the need for

          micro-piling, and Mr Fred Wong was introduced to

          somebody who may have some ideas on how to avoid the

          need for micro-piling.

              There was no question in that email, as far as I can

          remember, that we were looking for a project manager.

              We had problems, we had difficulties, it was

          basically falling apart, and we needed some help, and

          this fellow was put forward as somebody who might be

          able to give us some help, because it certainly wasn't

          working very well under Mr Poole.

      Q.  Did you approach Mr Frederick Wong and C&P Contract

          Services Pte Ltd in early August 2006?  That's the

          question.

      A.  No, I did not.

      Q.  Did The Pump Room approach Frederick Wong and C&P

          Contract Services Pte Ltd in August 2006, early August

          2006?

      A.  My understanding, and I was not --

      Q.  It's a "yes" or "no" question.

      A.  Well, I can't give a "yes" or "no" question.

              My understanding was that The Pump Room approached

          Mr Wong to ask about a specific question to do with

          micro-piling.  That is my understanding.  My only

 

12:43     understanding, frankly, is the email you have got.

          I was not at all familiar with anything else.  My entire

          understanding is that one email.

      Q.  Let's take a look at page 137, C&P Contract Services.

              Now you look at that, under "Job scope", 2.1.1:

              "Assist and advise owner on all aspects of the A&A

          project" -- right?  Did Frederick Wong do that?

      A.  He assisted and advised where necessary.

      Q.  Did he also assist and act as your representative in

          communicating and dealing with all relevant parties in

          the A&A project?

      A.  He did assist.

      Q.  I can go through all the entire contract, but I think

          what I want to get to is 2.3, "Project management".

          Isn't it correct that C&P Contract Services Pte Ltd, as

          you can see at 2.3, were undertaking the project

          management work -- they didn't call themselves designers

          did they?

      A.  The key word is "assist".  They did not say, "I'm going

          to take over this and do it."

              We are struggling, we are falling apart, there are

          things that are just not happening, and we need somebody

          who is there, as opposed to not there all the time, who

          can give us some advice, so we hired somebody on

          a consulting basis to advise and assist where we needed

 

12:44     it.

              Mr Wong himself will come and tell you exactly what

          he was doing, and Mr Wong will tell you himself that the

          last thing he undertook was the project management of

          a contract of this scale, (a) when he was waiting to

          move to another job, and, (b), when he was paid a fee of

          $10,000, which is not appropriate and in any way, shape

          or form for this level of commitment -- assist and

          advise consultancy --

      Q.  That is a private contractual arrangement between

          parties in terms of fees.  We are not interested in

          that.

              Let me deal with this why you take issue with assist

          owner (?).  Let's work through this; if you didn't have

          a project manager on site, hypothetically, would you

          agree that the owner would then have to do the overall

          project supervision?

      A.  We had a project manager.  It was Mr Poole --

      Q.  No, my question is hypothetically, if no project manager

          was appointed for the project, who would be responsible

          for the overall project supervision?

      A.  I would guess the answer to that is the board of

          directors.

      Q.  The owner, isn't it?

      A.  There is no one owner.

 

12:46 Q.  The owner meaning the employer of the project?

      A.  There is no one owner.  The company is the owner, the

          company is called The Pump Room Pte Ltd and there are

          20 shareholders and four directors.

              The board of directors I would say would be

          responsible for immediately appointing a project

          manager, if there was not one.

      Q.  Are Poole Associates the owners of The Pump Room?

      A.  No, they are the project managers.

      Q.  Let's go back to my question again; if you didn't have

          a project manager, The Pump Room would be responsible

          for supervising the entire project, yes?

      A.  The Pump Room is a company, it is not capable.

      Q.  Then I will move on; if there was no project manager,

          The Pump Room would be responsible and/or its board of

          directors, for overlooking the entire course of the

          project, do you agree with that?

      A.  I would suggest The Pump Room would be responsible for

          immediately appointing someone to do that, and that

          someone should be called a project manager.  You cannot

          have a board of directors all responsible for analysing

          all the costs of the project.  They don't have the

          skills --

      Q.  Let's leave aside who should be appointed.  I'm just

          saying, in the absence of a PM, project manager, who

 

12:47     does all these tasks here at 2.3.1 --

      A.  They are simply not done.  If there's nobody there to do

          them, they are not done.

      Q.  Well, my case is simply this, Mr Graham, since you are

          not answering my question, I'll just put it to you that

          a project manager actually assists the owner in the

          overall project supervision -- would you agree or

          disagree?

      A.  A project manager carries out the overall project

          supervision and reports to the company.

      Q.  Correct.  So he is the owner's representative on site,

          yes?

      A.  He is the project manager.

      Q.  Yes, but he represents the owner, yes?

      A.  He's working on behalf of the owner.

      Q.  He takes instructions from the owner?

      A.  He gives advice to the owner, he takes instructions from

          the owner.

      Q.  He reports to the owner?

      A.  He reports to the owner.

      Q.  So he is an agent of the owner?

      A.  This is a legal term.  I would not argue with that.

      Q.  Okay.  And all this work that I have just described,

          Frederick Wong from C&P Contracts Pte Ltd, carried it

          out -- yes?

 

12:48 A.  No, Mr Wong helped us firefight/troubleshoot areas where

          we had problems.  Mr Wong's two specific areas of skills

          were because we were having such difficulty getting our

          approvals through, he tried to help us with that, and,

          because the contract, the various variations here, there

          and everywhere were so complicated we didn't know what

          the heck was coming from where and what to pay.

              So he helped us on two things; one technically

          getting the approvals through for the various things we

          had to get from the URA and so on and, secondly, keeping

          track of what was being spent out there and telling us

          whether or not the invoices we were receiving from Mason

          Works were appropriate to be paid.

              That's what he helped us do.  He did not take over

          overall guidance of the project.

      Q.  But he carried out the works as described at 2.3 of

          C&P's contract services contract?  He carried those out,

          didn't he?

      A.  In fact he did not work with me, he worked with my wife,

          but I would say that to a degree, to a greater or lesser

          extent, he did something in most of these areas.

              He was working on an ad hoc basis and he did what he

          could do as and when a problem popped up.  But I think

          Mr Wong is much more capable of being very specific in

          what he did and did not do than I am.

 

12:50 Q.  Let's look at how people in the project treated Poole

          Associates.

      COURT:  Are you starting on something new?

      MR TAN:  Yes, your Honour.  I am on a subpoint, but maybe

          it's an appropriate juncture to take a break here.

      COURT:  All right.  Come back at 2.15.

      (12.50 pm)

                       (The luncheon adjournment)

      (2. 31 pm)

      COURT:  Yes.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, we have together the emails with

          RSP, in a bundle, and I marked it as volume 2 of the

          plaintiff's bundle of documents, your Honour.

              Basically these are correspondences between Mr Ed

          Poole and RSP, or from RSP to him, and there are just a

          few to -- I think they are all being called as

          witnesses.  And the exception is only item 17, which

          anyway was copied to witnesses who are going to give

          evidence in this court.  (Handed).

              In some cases Mr Ed Poole is the sender, and in many

          instances he is the recipient.  Only the last two

          documents are from the government department.

              Your Honour, I will also endeavour to call a

          representative of RSP to court if need be, your Honour,

          at this -- I have been calling them; they are aware of

 

14:32     these proceedings.  They have refused to come, but my

          only evidence or questions to them will be whether they

          were have delayed -- whether they were the cause of the

          delay in any way.  That's all, your Honour.  One

          question only.  I'm asking your Honour's -- I'll

          subpoena them first, and at an appropriate time, I will

          make the application, your Honour.

              But I believe these documents -- I don't know what

          my learned friend's positions are, but I tried to have

          them all taken through the ...

      COURT:  All right.

      MR TAN:  Your Honour, I just want to point out this:  First

          of all, this allegation that the dispute between RSP and

          Poole Associates was never pleaded.  So just by the

          introduction of these documents doesn't make it an issue

          in dispute.  That's one.

              The second thing is this, your Honour:  These

          documents have only been served to us after lunch.  I

          have gone through them very briefly.  I don't know

          whether all of the relevant documents are there, so we

          want to reserve our right in respect of this bundle of

          documents.

              The third point, in relation to RSP Architects, and

          that is this:  The plaintiffs have indicated all along

          that they were going to call RSP Architects as

 

14:33     witnesses.  No affidavit of evidence-in-chief was filed,

          your Honour; no efforts were made to subpoena them prior

          to this trial.  So the point is, they had plenty of time

          to prepare for this, and they didn't.  In the fact, when

          we were querying them, your honour, just prior to the

          trial, the week before, because at that point in time we

          hadn't received any receipt of a subpoena or notice that

          RSP were going to be witnesses, we were told quite

          unequivocally, your Honour, that they were not going to

          call RSP Architects as witnesses.  So if they are going

          to call RSP as witnesses as well, what I probably need

          to do, your Honour, now, is take further instructions on

          that, and we will reserve our right on that.

      COURT:  Okay.

              Please carry on.

      MR TAN:  All right, your Honour, I will continue with

          cross-examination.

              Before we continue, Mr Graham, there are a few

          things I want to clarify with you.  We don't have much

          time for the evidence.  There is quite a number of

          witnesses still to come from your side.  I have asked

          you several questions.  I would appreciate if you say

          "yes", "no", "maybe".  In terms of explanation of your

          answer, perhaps what we can do is, rather than explain

          every single answer that you have given to us, I suggest

 

14:36     that we leave it for re-examination.  Mr Vijay is here,

          your counsel, will be able to identify what are relevant

          and what isn't and perhaps raise them in re-examination.

              Can we do that, so we can move along a bit faster?

      A.  Anxious to help.

      Q.  Thank you.

              Now, what I want to talk about in this segment of

          the cross-examination is the manner in which Pump Room

          and its employees, as well as the other consultants,

          treated Poole Associates.

              The first thing is this:  I've shown you an email

          from Clark Martin to you in which he refers to Poole

          Associates as designer; yes?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Let me refer you to another document, and this is found

          at page 174 of the agreed bundle, volume 2.  Do you have

          that page?

      A.  I do, yes.

      Q.  Now, what I am referring you to is that email from you

          to Colin Simpson on the 8th of May.  And in this email,

          again, you have identified Ed Poole as the designer.

              Yes?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Let's move on to another document.  Let's go to page 202

          of the same bundle of documents.

 

14:37         Now, this is an email from Poole Associates to RSP,

          where Poole Associates have identified themselves as the

          designers for the two projects at Clarke Quay, the two

          projects being the Pump Room and the Highlander.

              My question to you is this:  Did you at any time

          respond to this email to say that they were also the

          project managers?

      A.  I did not, as far as I can recall.

      Q.  Okay.

      A.  But I have to repeat that to me, Mr Poole is called the

          designer because that is what Mr Poole is called.

          Mr Poole is the designer and project manager because

          that is what the contract says.

      Q.  Yes, you have given evidence on that.

              Let's turn, then, to page 402 of the plaintiff's

          bundle of documents.  That, I believe -- 442.

      A.  This is mine.

      MR TAN:  Sorry, your Honour, I may have identified the wrong

          email.  Just give me a second while I look for it.

          I apologise, your Honour, I think I have the wrong

          reference there.  Let me just look for the document in

          question.

              I'm sorry, it's actually at page 68 of the

          1st defendant's bundle of documents.

      A.  Not the affidavit?

 

14:40 Q.  No, it's the beige-coloured document, page 6, we

          referred to it earlier.

      A.  Right.

      Q.  Can you look at Mr Shaharin Abas Koh's email on 31 July?

          What he is essentially doing is introducing Project

          Portfolio as the M&E consultants to the project,

          correct -- if you look at that email?

      A.  Yes, that's what he's doing.

      Q.  Then, when you flip to the next page, Mr Koh also has

          identified other parties in the project, yes?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Next to "Ed Poole, Director, Poole Associates", he

          identifies Poole Associates as the ID consultant.

              Did you write to correct this and say that he, i.e.

          Mr Poole or Poole Associates, were also the project

          manager?

      A.  Mr Poole's title is "ID" in this context.  We do not go

          around saying, "ID and project manager", I think I have

          stressed this frequently --

      Q.  No, my question -- Mr Graham, remember what I said

          prior, answer my question first, "yes" or "no"?

      A.  No, I did not.  There was no need for me to do so in my

          opinion.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, if the witness is going to give

          a short explanation, it's faster that way, rather than

 

14:42     saving the whole lot for re, then I can cut my re.

      MR TAN:  Well, it would help also, your Honour, if the

          witness just answers my question first.

      MR VIJAY:  The answer was whatever qualification short so

          that I can save time --

      A.  I apologise, I'm not helping.

      MR TAN:  So your answer is no you did not write to correct

          that?

      A.  I did not.

      Q.  Is there any email where you or anyone in the project

          has referred to Poole Associates as the project manager?

      A.  Only in his contract.

      Q.  My question was; is there any email during the course of

          the project where anyone had identified Poole Associates

          as the project manager?

      A.  There is endless documentation between Mr Poole

          and Sommerville -- there is endless documentation

          identifying him as acting as the project manager.

              We never used the title "project manager" for

          Mr Poole, because Mr Poole is known as the designer,

          which is the designation he prefers.

      COURT:  So the answer should be "no", because he says is

          there anywhere where you identify --

      A.  Well, to be honest, I can't remember, your Honour.

      MR TAN:  Isn't it correct that your own expert, Mr Crispin,

 

14:43     has identified in his report C&P Consultants as the

          project manager and not Poole Associates?

      A.  Well, I do agree that Mr Crispin did not find any other

          title for Fred Wong in his contract.  It's difficult to

          call him advise and assist, so, when you look through

          the contract, the only title that is there is on the

          second or third page on the heading halfway down, called

          "project manager".  This does not make him project

          manager.  Mr Wong was a consultant and Mr Wong will

          identify clearly what his role was.

      Q.  The point is, in March 2007, your expert Mr Crispin

          identified C&P Consultants as the project manager --

          yes?

      A.  Based purely on that one contract, he was unaware what

          happened --

      Q.  "Yes" or "no", Mr Graham?

      A.  He did not identify -- he named him as project manager,

          yes.

      Q.  So, for all intents and purposes, everybody in the

          project had treated or had identified Poole Associates

          as the designer and not the project manager -- do you

          agree with me?

      A.  I disagree.  They called him designer, they did not

          identify him as the designer and not project manager.

          There is a huge difference.

 

14:44 Q.  Okay.  According to you, Mr Graham, a project manager

          has a number of duties, and this includes drawing up

          a programme of works -- yes?

      A.  I would refer to the duties spelt out in Mr Poole's

          contract.  It is not for me to start defining the

          project manager's duties.  They are in the contract.

      Q.  No, my point is this; is it your case --

      A.  I am not qualified to judge the detailed jobs of

          a project manager.  I rely entirely on the contract.

      Q.  Is it your case that the project manager is required to

          draw up a programme of works?

      A.  I rely entirely on what is in the contract.  I am not

          qualified to make these comments.

      Q.  But this is your case, Mr Graham.

      A.  My case is that the project -- the contract that

          Mr Poole gave us, and which we signed, is definitive in

          identifying Mr Poole as a project manager in a series of

          areas.  Those are the areas that I, with all due

          respect, ask be respected.

              I'm not qualified to start commenting on what is and

          is not project management work.  I am not qualified.

      Q.  Having looked at the contract and identifying the things

          that Poole Associates allegedly did not do, i.e. project

          management, is it your case that the project manager is

          supposed to draw up a programme of works -- "yes" or

 

14:46     "no", or "I don't know"?

      A.  A project manager to me should have begun by

          establishing a very clear timeline on what had to be

          done, when it had to be done.

              The project manager to me should have begun by

          drawing up a very clear budget as to what we should be

          expecting in terms of costs.  A project manager to me

          should have been identifying exactly what support was

          needed from other people and identifying those people.

          That's the kinds of things a project manager should be

          doing.  Mr Poole was very remiss in most areas.

      Q.  Okay, let's not fudge.  Let's look at paragraph 27 of

          your affidavit of evidence-in-chief.

      A.  This is my affidavit?

      Q.  Your affidavit of evidence-in-chief, paragraph 27.  In

          your affidavit -- are there at page 15?

      A.  No, sorry I'm at page 3, where it says that Clark Martin

          recommended we use Ed Poole to be project manager and

          designer.

      Q.  No, paragraph 27 of your affidavit.

      A.  27?

      Q.  27.

      A.  Right.

      Q.  Do you see that:

              "... Ed Poole failed to carry out the basic

 

14:47     requirements of project management."

              I'm reading from the second sentence of that

          paragraph:

              "He had established no detailed planning, no

          timelines and no budget.  Nothing but drawings and more

          drawings were done."

              Implicit in that statement, are you complaining that

          Poole Associates, or rather the project managers, were

          supposed to draw up a programme of works?

      A.  I have no idea what you mean by "a programme of works".

          To me he should have drawn up what we call a timeline,

          which basically identifies what has to be done by whom

          and when.

              He had been given copies of this by people, it had

          been suggested that this would be appropriate, he had

          not done anything like that.

      Q.  Let's use your terminology, "timelines"; your case is

          that the project manager is supposed to draw up

          timelines, yes?

      A.  He's supposed to manage the project.

      Q.  My question to you was; your case is that the project

          manager is supposed to draw up timelines --

      A.  One aspect of that is analysing what has to be done when

          by whom.

      Q.  So is he supposed to draw up a series of timelines --

 

14:48     "yes" or "no"?

      A.  He certainly should be able to know when things have to

          be ordered, when things have to be done.  He should be

          managing the project.

      Q.  Mr Graham, the question is simple:  Is he, the project

          manager, supposed to draw up the time lines?  Yes or no?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Right.  Thank you.  Not that difficult.

              Did Poole Associates do that?  Did they draw up a

          time line for the work to be carried out?

      A.  They did not.

      Q.  Did you ever chase Poole Associates for time lines?

      A.  I personally did not.  Mr Shelley did, as far as I am

          aware.  He actually, as far as I know, sent him an

          example of what should be done and recommended he do it.

      Q.  Your case is that from the very beginning, there was a

          rush to meet the October deadline; yes?

      A.  I would not say "rush", because from the beginning, we

          actually had plenty of time.  There was a need to get up

          and going by the 1st of October; and beginning, as we

          did, in mid-April -- and certainly by early May -- we

          still had five months do it, and five months should have

          been more than adequate.  There were complications, but

          these were solvable; five months should have been more

          than adequate.

 

14:50         So "rush", no more than normal in these situations.

      Q.  Okay, let's take a look at Chris Shelley's affidavit.

          That is in the bundle of affidavits, volume 2.

      A.  I have that.

      Q.  The third tab.  And I ask you to turn to page 7.

              Now, this is what you are referring to as time

          lines.  Yes?

      A.  I think -- Gantt chart of time lines, or whatever the

          phrase is.

      Q.  And the person who came out with this time line was

          Chris Shelley, not Poole Associates; yes?

      A.  This specifically refers to the brewery, more than

          anything else.

      Q.  No, no.  My question is, the person who came up with

          this time line was Chris Shelley and not Poole

          Associates.  Yes?

      A.  That's correct.

      Q.  Now let's turn to the next page, page 8, page 9.  That

          is an email from Colin Simpson to Clark Martin, Chris

          Shelley, and yourself.  And the attachment in that email

          can be found at pages 10 to 14.

              Now, this is also what you would refer to as a time

          line, wouldn't you, at pages 10 to 14?

      A.  Yes, indeed.

      Q.  So was this the agreed schedule in which parties had or

 

14:52     were intending to proceed?

      A.  No, this is an example by Chris on the kind of thing

          that should be done.

      Q.  And if you look at that email at page 8 and page 9, do

          you confirm that Poole Associates were not copied in on

          this email?

      A.  I don't know whether Chris knew Poole Associates at that

          particular time, but I can confirm that this does not

          copy Poole Associates.  It only copies internal people.

          If I can just look at that again.

              It's Clark, myself, and Colin.  And he has asked for

          the owners of the various bits to be added, because he

          doesn't know.

      Q.  Right.  Don't you agree with me that if these are the

          time lines by which you all had wanted the project to be

          completed, the very least you should have done was to

          forward this to the project manager, or copied him on

          it?

              Yes?

      A.  It certainly is appropriate to pass this to him.  On the

          other hand, that's a bit like teaching a grandmother to

          suck eggs.  He is the expert, not us.

      Q.  Let's look at the first defendant's bundle of documents

          again.  We'll go back to that.  That's the document with

          the beige cover.  Tab 1, page 1.

 

14:54         That's an e-mail from Fred Wong to Shaharin, Clark,

          and RSP?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Poole Associates are not copied in on this email?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  If you look at paragraph 2, a, b, c, parties had agreed

          to complete the project -- well, to split it in three

          parts and to complete it within those dates:

          Highlander, 1st of October; The Pump Room, 1st of

          November; the microbrewery, 1st of December.

              Would I be correct to say that --

      A.  Is this suggesting that Fred Wong is also the project

          manager for The Highlander?

      Q.  You don't need to foreshadow my questions.  Just answer

          my questions.

              Now, at paragraph 2 there is a reference to meeting

          by parties, a meeting by parties.  Do you know whether

          or not Poole Associates was at that meeting?

      A.  In the month of August, Poole Associates was hardly in

          Singapore at all.  What will demonstrate that --

      COURT:  Please answer his question.

      A.  Do I know whether it was there?  I can refer to the

          schedule where we actually identified when he is and is

          not in Singapore.  Can I look at that schedule?

              Vijay, where is the schedule which show's Mr Poole's

 

14:55     presence in Singapore?

              I think in August he was not present for a minimum

          of 14 days.

      MR VIJAY:  Can you refer to the third defendant's bundle of

          documents.

      A.  Is this the beige colour again?

              I have it, yes.  This is the passport.  Where is the

          summary?

      COURT:  Do you really want to know whether he was at the

          meeting?

      MR TAN:  No, your Honour; then we'll move on, actually.

      COURT:  Yes, because your point is that they had taken over

          project management --

      MR TAN:  That's correct your Honour.

      COURT:  All right?  So let's not worry about that.

      MR TAN:  Right, your Honour.

              Then, in that case, let me quickly refer you to

          page 7 of the bundle, same bundle.  You will see time

          lines.  These time lines were drawn up by Fred Wong of

          C&P?

              Yes?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  I'll go quickly to my point, then:  The whole of tab 1

          are documents between Fred Wong and RSP, talking about

          the completion date of the project.  I have gone through

 

14:58     them, I have annexed them; I have not seen a single

          correspondence in which Poole Associates were copied.

          Can you confirm that?

      A.  I will take your word for it.

      Q.  Now, your case is that Poole Associates were supposed to

          carry out project management, and they didn't do that;

          yes?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  In the entire course of the project, did you ever ask

          Poole Associates or remind them to carry out these

          project management works?

      A.  By the time we got to September, we were so far behind

          that our only thrust was getting the job done.  We were

          not in the blame game at that moment in time.  I

          personally did not chase Mr Poole to do his job

          properly.

      Q.  Thank you.

              Did you ever tell Poole Associates that if they

          failed to carry out these duties, you would be

          appointing C&P to do their job?

      A.  I never appointed C&P to take over their job.  I

          appointed C&P to help in whichever way was necessary.

          Because our --

      Q.  In that case --

      A.  -- our people did not have the competence to do it.

 

14:59 Q.  In that case, did you ever point out to Poole Associates

          that even with C&P, project managers -- or project

          consultants, you still expected them to carry out

          project management work, "they" being Poole Associates?

          Did you ever tell them?

      A.  Poole Associates did not stop carrying out project

          management work.  Poole Associates kept on doing a lot

          of project management work.  Fred Wong was filling in

          the gaps left by Poole Associates, in that they were not

          doing everything that they should be doing.

      Q.  No, so my question is --

      A.  But there were many, many things that Poole Associates

          were doing that were clearly project management work.

      Q.  We have got to move alone quickly, like I told you,

          Mr Graham.  My question was, did you ever tell Poole

          Associates that you expected them to carry on with

          project management, notwithstanding the appointment of

          C&P contracts?  Yes or no?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Did you tell Poole Associates, throughout the entire

          project, you intended to deduct their fees because they

          were not carrying out project management?  Yes or no?

      A.  I did not.

      Q.  In fact, Mr Graham, isn't it correct you continued to

          pay the invoices that were rendered to the Pump Room by

 

15:00     Poole Associates throughout the entire course of the

          project?  Yes or no?

      A.  I continued to pay every invoice Mr Poole sent, and I

          can explain why, if you give me time.

      Q.  Now, Mr Graham, you have a number of businesses, as you

          had earlier testified.  You must be a fairly savvy

          businessman; yes?

      A.  That's not for me to say.

      Q.  All right.  You're being modest.  We shall move on,

          then.

              In your experience, do you pay your suppliers when

          they give you defective goods?  Do you pay your

          suppliers?

      A.  I can give you an explanation now as to why we did not

          have a fight with Mr Poole --

      Q.  No, no, just answer my question first:  Do you pay your

          suppliers when they have given you defective goods?  Do

          you say, "Well, okay, I have received defective goods,

          but here, I'm going to pay you in full"?

              Have you ever done that?

      A.  It is not a normal approach, and I would not normally do

          that.

      Q.  Do you recall an email from Poole Associates to you

          sometime in November chasing for an overdue invoice?

      A.  I do.

 

15:01 Q.  Did you tell him, at that point in time, "I am not

          paying you because you did not carry out project

          management works"?

      A.  Say that again?

      Q.  Did you tell him, when he was chasing for the overdue

          invoice in November, that "I'm not paying you because

          you did not carry out project management works"?

      A.  Could you possibly refer me to the exact page of that

          invoice?

      Q.  All right.  Let's take a look at EDP -- this is the

          first defendant's affidavit of evidence-in-chief.  141,

          page 141.

      A.  I'm sorry, I am struggling here.  Give me a second.  The

          1st defendant.  The 1st defendant's affidavit in chief,

          yes, page 101?

      Q.  Page 141.

      A.  Yes.  That is Friday 17 November at 1.55 pm.  May

          I refer you to my document, my bundle of documents,

          page 276; you will find that it is dated precisely one

          hour before I sent that document, and you will see

          exactly why we did not anger Mr Poole.

      Q.  No, but can you answer my question first --

      A.  That is the answer to your question right there.

      Q.  What is the answer?

      A.  Page 276 of my -- Mr Poole spells out quite clearly the

 

15:04     problems we had with him in this document.  This is my

          affidavit, number 2, agreed bundle of documents,

          page 276.

      COURT:  Which bundle of documents are you referring to?

      MR VIJAY:  The agreed bundle of documents, volume 2, your

          Honour.

      A.  Volume 2 of the agreed bundle of documents, page 276;

          this is dated exactly one hour before I sent that letter

          to Mr Poole.

      MR TAN:  So your answer to my question?

      A.  Is that Mr Poole is a very difficult, very violent and

          very bullying personality.  He has progressively caused

          us enormous embarrassment, and when he threatens us with

          extreme embarrassment and with extreme actions, we are

          not in the mood to inflame his anger any further.

      Q.  It's not about inflaming his anger.  Why didn't you

          point out at that point in time -- sorry, let me just

          rephrase that; did you point out to him that he was not

          carrying out project management?

      A.  I am dealing with an unbalanced aggressive individual --

      Q.  Answer my question first before you go on to slander

          Mr Poole.

      A.  I'm sorry, Mr Poole is slandering himself.  I pointed

          out that everything is okay, calm down, don't do

          anything rash, that's what I'm trying to say.

 

15:05         We are here at the beginning of November, we are in

          such trouble on this project, we are losing $150,000

          a month, and the last thing I need is Mr Poole, who is

          the project manager and designer, to start creating

          problems for us.

              The amount of money we are paying Mr Poole is quite

          small in relation to the $150,000 a month that we are

          facing in terms of loss.  So I basically tried to calm

          him down, but you see what I was reading when I was

          writing that memo.

      Q.  Well, the excuse that you gave, I think it's evident

          from the documents, is that money was tight and not

          because Poole Associates did not carry out --

      A.  Let me clarify for you.

      Q.  No, just answer my question first, Mr Graham.

      A.  Let me clarify for you.

              The company was short of money, progressively, and

          it kept going through the money it had; this meant that

          we had to put more money in.  The shareholders were

          never short of money, the shareholders were never unable

          to put money in, the company regularly and frequently

          went through its funds and had to be given more, but, as

          of November, at least $2 million more was put in the

          company, so there was no shortage of funds.

      Q.  Now, Mr Graham, isn't it true that the first time you

 

15:07     raised these allegations of failing to carry out project

          management was in February 2007, and this was three

          months after the Pump Room had opened for business?

          Isn't it true that this was the first time you raised

          with Poole Associates this allegation?

      A.  Quite untrue.  I refer you to the memo in early January,

          where I said, "Are you not responsible for project

          management?  What is going on here?"

      Q.  Which page is that?

      A.  "Am I missing something?  Are you not responsible for

          project management, because the project is not finished,

          why are you asking for being paid?"

              Sorry, Vijay, I'm actually quite tired, so I need to

          ask for some help, I apologise, I will do my best.

              This is an early January document.

      COURT:  How long more will you take with this witness,

          considering that the other two counsel would like time?

      MR TAN:  I am trying to finish this, your Honour, perhaps in

          the next 45 minutes.

      A.  Can I refer you to page 301 of my bundle of documents,

          this is dated January.  It is asking for payment, and

          I'm saying, "Mr Poole, is the job complete", which of

          course it was not, and he said, as far as he's

          concerned, the job was complete, and I said, "I thought

          you were managing the project, apparently I'm mistaken,

 

15:09     it's far from finished, the decoration and all the

          principal walls still to be delivered and placed.  As

          far as I'm concerned we don't even have a quote for this

          work.  Am I missing something here?  Are you only

          responsible for the design element?", clearly indicating

          that I believed that he was responsible for project

          management in February, not March, and I was seriously

          complaining I believe.

      Q.  And this email was after the project had opened, or

          rather after The Pump Room had opened for business on

          6 December?

      A.  The Pump Room opened on 6 December in an unfinished

          condition and with an unfinished brewery.  The reason we

          opened is that we were desperate to open because the

          cashflow was horrendous, the project was not finished,

          neither the brewery project nor the restaurant project,

          as I think you are fully aware, because it's said in so

          many, many places in the documentation.

      Q.  Just to clarify as well, Mr Graham, after this email,

          there was another invoice rendered by Poole Associates,

          their final invoice -- yes?

      A.  I'll take your word for it.

      Q.  And you made partial payment on that final invoice, yes?

      A.  Mr Poole claimed his staff were starving and we are

          nothing if not -- (simultaneous speakers - unclear) --

 

15:10 Q.  Can you answer my question first -- "yes" or "no"?

      A.  Yes, I did, because, again, we were not finished.

      Q.  Mr Graham, I'm sure you are familiar with the term

          closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, yes?

      A.  I think everyone must be.

      Q.  Don't you agree that, if something was not being done

          properly it is common sense to bring it up during the

          project and not after the project has been completed --

          yes?

      A.  By the time it became an issue, we were in desperate

          straits, and I mean desperate straits.

      Q.  Answer my question first, Mr Poole.

      A.  Our intention was to solve the problems, not the blame

          game.

      Q.  Exactly.

      A.  I have to say it was only with hindsight when we

          analysed exactly what had happened that we realised the

          enormity of the failings of Mr Poole.

      Q.  In other words, during the entire course of the project

          you didn't think Poole Associates failed in any aspect

          of their work?

      A.  I think they failed enormously in many aspects, but

          there were many people failing in aspects, and Mr Poole

          simply was supposed to be the conductor who failed to

          conduct.

 

15:11 Q.  Well, Mr Graham, I will make my submissions.  I'm going

          to put my case to you.  I'm going to put it to you that

          you paid Poole Associates their invoices because they

          carried out their contracted works -- "yes" or "no"?  Do

          you agree or disagree?

      A.  I disagree.

      Q.  And I'm going to put it to you as well that this

          allegation that Poole Associates failed to carry out

          project management is simply a sham to deny or delay

          payment to Poole Associates -- do you agree or disagree?

      A.  I disagree.

      Q.  Okay.  Let's move on to the interior design works.  Do

          you accept that Poole Associates had sourced for and

          looked for certain materials, direct purchase materials

          from Malaysia, Bali and Yogjakarta?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And these were for what we know as fittings, furnishings

          and effects or FF+E, correct?

      A.  I couldn't argue with that.

      Q.  So what he did essentially for this part of the work was

          that he would obtain quotations from various suppliers

          and he would pass them on to The Pump Room, am

          I correct?

      A.  That is correct.

      Q.  And The Pump Room would enter into a direct contract

 

15:13     with these suppliers?

      A.  Mr Poole would arrange for quotations to be sent by

          these suppliers to The Pump Room and we would accept

          those quotations.

      Q.  Let's take a look at page 126 of Mr Edward Poole's

          affidavit.

      A.  Poole Associates?

      Q.  Poole Associates, the 1st defendant, page 126.

              Before that, let's turn to page 123, look at

          pages 123, 124 and 125.  These are emails from Poole

          Associates to Fred Wong, setting out a list of these

          direct purchase items, do you see that?

              And then at page 126 to 128 he has a table setting

          out the individual furniture or finishing or whatever it

          is, a brief description of it, the vendor, the

          quantities required and the total cost?

      A.  Yes, I see that.

      Q.  So this table essentially sets out the cost that

          The Pump Room has to incur in purchasing the furnishing

          fittings and effects or FF+E, which it's known as in the

          industry I'm told.  It is a bit small, your Honour.

      COURT:  I can see it.

      MR TAN:  On the left-hand side you have the pictures and

          then you have the description, the quantities, and then

          the amounts.

 

15:15         Now my case, and I am going to put it to you and

          move on very quickly, is that, insofar as project

          management work is to be done by Poole Associates, that

          was only for the interior design works, i.e. this FF+E

          which is set out at pages 126 to 128 -- do you agree or

          disagree with me?

      A.  I disagree.

      Q.  Let's move on to another topic, i.e. the completion date

          of the project.

      A.  Shall I say why I disagree?

      Q.  If you need to explain, Mr Vijay here can take you

          through during re-examination.  I just wanted to put my

          case to you and I'll move on.

              Did Poole Associates ever agree to complete the job

          by a certain date?  Did Ed Poole say to you, "I promise

          to complete this project by X day"?

      A.  No, he did not.

      Q.  That's why, you look if you look at his contract, and

          that can be found at page 113 of your affidavit.

      A.  113 of his affidavit?  I am looking at his contract in

          his affidavit.

      Q.  113 in your affidavit.

      A.  My affidavit?

      Q.  Yes.  If you look at the column under "Move in", it says

          "To be determined".

 

15:17 A.  113.  It also says "As discussed at meetings early

          2006", and at those meetings in early 2006, what was

          specifically and clearly indicated to Mr Poole was that

          it was our intention to open by 1 October.

              So it may not be too specific there, but that's what

          was said --

      Q.  One question at a time.  Would you agree with me that at

          the point of signing of this contract the move in date

          had not been determined yet?

      A.  Mr Poole had not done the exercise to determine it, that

          is correct.

      Q.  Look through the contract; you will also see no

          contractual stipulations in which Poole Associates have

          to complete their drawings -- yes?

      A.  We did not specify the timetable for Mr Poole.

          Mr Poole's job was to specify the timetable for

          everybody.

      Q.  Sorry, you did not specify... ?  Could you just repeat

          that answer again?

      A.  We did not specify Mr Poole's timetable.  We expected

          Mr Poole to specify the timetable for the entire project

          in detail.

      Q.  Thank you.

      A.  We specifically told him October 1 was our opening date.

          We did not specify the track to get there, and that

 

15:18     target date, I think was (simultaneous speakers -

          unclear) -- five or six times --

      Q.  Let's take at look at page 48 of the same affidavit,

          Mr Poole's affidavit, EDP-3.

              This is an email from the 2nd defendant to Mr Clark

          Martin, and, if you look at the timeline there, they are

          saying that if all the drawings, M&E, structural and

          consultancy work were given to them in the month

          of July, they projected finishing the project in

          mid-November -- do you see that?

      A.  I see it.  I don't agree with it.  And two weeks later

          I was specifically saying that the October 1 date was

          still in place.

      Q.  If you don't agree with it, fine, we'll move on.

              Did Clark Martin ever forward this email to you?

      A.  Yes, he did.

      Q.  So you knew that even on July 7, before the drawings had

          been obtained, there was no way the project could have

          been completed by mid-November 2006?

      A.  I am sorry, I do not agree with that timeline at all.

          It is a nonsense.  Four and a half months is ridiculous.

      COURT:  That's not the point.  He's saying that -- whether

          it's nonsense or not --

      A.  To me it is nonsense.

      COURT:  He's saying that you all knew that Mason was telling

 

15:20     you that they were going to finish in the middle

          of November.  That's all he's asking.

      A.  I was aware that Mason Works sent that document.  Yes,

          your Honour.

      COURT:  Fine, so you are aware that Mason Works -- next

          question.

      MR TAN:  In fact, if you look at Frederick Wong's timetable,

          at tab 1 of the first defendant's bundle of documents,

          the time lines I referred you to earlier, at page 7 of

          that document --

      A.  Sorry, page 7 of which document?

      Q.  First defendant's bundle of documents.

              Now, at item 12, "Expected Permit to Work".  Do you

          see that?  That is November 2006, and that refers to the

          structural work, isn't it?

              So by Fred Wong's own estimation or time lines --

      COURT:  What page are you at?

      MR TAN:  Page 7, your Honour, of the first defendant's

          bundle of documents.

      COURT:  Okay.

              Which time line are you referring to?

      MR TAN:  I'm looking at item 12, your Honour, right at the

          bottom, "Expected Permit to Work".  And that's for the

          micro-piling and structural works, your Honour.

              Now, you will see that Fred Wong himself has

 

15:23     projected November 2006 to start works for the

          micro-piling works; yes?

      A.  And this was done by Mr Wong at the end of August, two

          months after; two months, which, frankly, were lost

          months, because the project manager, Mr Poole, was

          hardly in town for July and August.  We lost an enormous

          amount of time in July and August because there was

          nobody there.  Mr Wong was not there; Mr Poole was not

          there.

      COURT:  Can you please answer the question that is asked of

          you.  All right?  Otherwise --

      A.  I'm sorry, your Honour.

              Please repeat.

      MR TAN:  That you knew -- let me rephrase that:  That you

          knew, by looking at Fred Wong's time lines, that the

          expected piling date could not have commenced any

          earlier than November 2006; yes?

      A.  This was drafted in early September, I believe, by which

          time there was certainly no possibility of us starting

          before November the 15th.  But if you start in early

          July, the case was quite different then.

      Q.  So I'm going to put it to you that everybody knew that

          there was no way The Pump Room could have been opened

          for business before November 2006.

      A.  Everybody knew in September.  But in May, everybody knew

 

15:24     we could open by October the 1st.

      Q.  Okay.  I'm going to move on to the last --

      COURT:  Well, what about the letter of July the 7th from

          Mason?  That's not September.

      A.  My apologies, your Honour -- the letter from Mason is a

          month for this, a month for that; two months for this

          and two weeks for that.

              Essentially, my contention is this:  The design for

          The Pump Room restaurant was available on the 4th of

          July, an effectively finished design for the restaurant.

      COURT:  That's not the point --

      A.  What was -- may I finish, your Honour?

              What was delaying us was getting the approval

          through the micro-piling process, through the structural

          process.  If you separate it, if you separate it into

          the restaurant and into the brewery, that dramatically

          changes the possibility.  And my criticism of Mr Poole

          was that he did not address the problems that we were

          having, and a man of his experience should have solved

          that.

              It only takes seven days to get approval to go ahead

          and build a restaurant; it takes two months to get

          approval to do micro-piling.  If you divide it into two,

          everything changes dramatically.  My criticism is that

          he did not address the problems and solve it.

 

15:25 MR TAN:  I don't want to go into that, your Honour.  It's

          not pleaded, so --

      COURT:  Yes.  Go on.  Go on.

      MR TAN:  -- I'll move on.

              The last topic -- okay, let's deal with it very

          quickly, then:  Do you accept that it is The Pump Room's

          prerogative to appoint a contractor?  Ie, they have a

          right to appoint any contractor they wish?

      A.  It is the Pump -- it is the buyer's prerogative to

          appoint.  That is correct.

      Q.  That's right.  So if The Pump Room wanted to dispense

          with tender and appoint a contractor directly, it would

          be entirely -- it would be entirely within their right

          to do so; yes?

      A.  It would be entirely within their right to do so.

      Q.  Likewise, The Pump Room had absolutely no obligation to

          appoint the contractor recommended; ie, they can ignore

          the recommendations and appoint their own contractors.

          Yes?

      A.  This is assuming that The Pump Room knows a

          contractor --

      Q.  No, just answer my question.  It's 3.30 --

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  -- Mr Sreenivasan has set me a deadline to finish my

          cross-examination questions; I want to finish it by

 

15:26     3.45.

      A.  The Pump Room has rights to do exactly what it wishes to

          do with its own money, appoint or not appoint a

          contractor; correct.

      Q.  Right.  Would you also agree with --

      A.  But it is seeking advice.

      Q.  Would you also agree with me that it would be redundant

          to call a tender if a contractor already has been

          appointed?

      A.  I would not agree with you that it is redundant to call

          a tender if a contractor has not been appointed, and I

          will explain to you why, if I may be given a moment.

      Q.  Well, I am just going to move on, Mr Graham.

      A.  The fact is that a contractor is not appointed until the

          contract is signed for the actual job.  Now,

          basically --

      COURT:  He is moving on.

      A.  You get a quote, your Honour, and you need to assess

          that quote.  And unless you have alternative quotes, you

          cannot assess it.

      MR TAN:  Mr Graham, how many projects has Mason Works worked

          with -- directly with Clark Martin?  How many projects?

          Do you know?

      A.  I don't know.  Four, three; something like that.

      Q.  Three, four?

 

15:27 A.  Something like that.

      Q.  As a percentage to the number -- or the total number of

          projects that Clark has done, what percentage of these

          projects has he appointed Mason Works?

      A.  I do not know.  Please ask Clark.

      Q.  Do you know, as a percentage of projects, how many

          projects that Poole Associates and Mason Works did

          together?

      A.  Five.

      Q.  5 per cent?

      A.  No, five projects.

      Q.  Five projects out of how many projects that Poole

          Associates has done in its 16 years as interior

          designers here in Singapore?

      A.  I'll leave it to Ed Poole to answer that question.

      Q.  Now, Mason Works were also the contractors for The

          Highlander; yes?

      A.  That is correct.

      Q.  And they were engaged by Clark for that project there,

          and he has no complaints about them.  Yes?

      A.  In fact, he is quite happy.  It was an extremely cheap

          product; cost less than $100 a square foot.

      Q.  Now, at paragraph 7 of Clark's -- Clark Martin's

          affidavit of evidence-in-chief -- do you want to take a

          look at that?  Because he says there he agrees that he

 

15:28     approached Mason Works to carry out the demolition works

          for The Pump Room.  Let's take a look at that.

      A.  Which page?

      Q.  Bundle of affidavits, 1.  First page.  A short

          affidavit, but at page 2.

      COURT:  Whose affidavit?

      MR TAN:  Clark Martin's, your Honour.

              If I read at page 3:

              "Mason Works was the contractor for Highlander.

          When both the Pump Room and Highlander decided to share

          a kitchen, some demolition work had to be done.  Mason

          Works did that particular job and Mason Works was asked

          to invoice Pump Room for that."

              We stop there first.

              Do you agree, therefore, that Clark Martin had

          approached Mason Works directly for the demolition

          works?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And therefore Poole Associates had nothing to do with

          the appointment of Mason Works for that part of the

          work?

      A.  I actually don't know, to be honest.  I suggest you ask

          Mr Martin.  Highlander was about two months in advance,

          and therefore he was more involved.  The complication

          was that there was some space being shared by The Pump

 

15:30     Room and by The Highlander, and it was unclear exactly

          who it was going to end up with.  In the event, we -- we

          moved the space to The Pump Room.  So the demolition was

          done under a Pump Room/Highlander umbrella, and then it

          was decided that The Pump Room was the owner of the

          space.

      Q.  Okay.

      A.  So it was actually Clark who authorised it, but it was

          very much under a Highlander project, sort of --

      Q.  Let's go back to the first defendant's AEIC, at page 48.

          That's an email from Mason Works to Clark Martin.  Go

          back to that.

      A.  So we're going back to the --

      Q.  First defendant's affidavit of evidence-in-chief.

      A.  This is Mr Poole?

      Q.  Yes -- first defendant's.  It's the one with quite a

          number of tabs at the side.

      A.  Of the bundle of documents?

      Q.  No, the affidavit of evidence-in-chief, first

          defendant's, the blue one with tabs at the side.

      A.  I have no tabs.

      Q.  Okay, right.  I'm sorry, then.  Page 48.

      A.  I'm there.

      Q.  This email was forwarded to you, you earlier testified?

      A.  Yes, I received that email.

 

15:32 Q.  And you will see also that the discussion there, for

          Highlander and Pump Room, was not just confined to

          demolition works, was it?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  So I'm going to put it to you that it was The Pump

          Room's intention all along to appoint Mason Works for

          the demolition works as well as the construction works

          for The Pump Room project.  Do you agree or disagree?

      A.  I disagree that it was our intention to appoint them

          willy-nilly, because you will never appoint anyone until

          you actually have some numbers in your hand.  What I

          desired was competing quotations to be prepared and a

          possibility of negotiating a contract with whoever is

          the favourite one.

              I have to say that Mason Works and the relationship

          with Clark and the fact they are working in The

          Highlander gave them what I would call a favoured

          position, but it did not guarantee them the business if

          their quotation failed to live up to our expectations.

      Q.  Okay.

      A.  And what distressed me was when I got the quotation, I

          had no basis at all for evaluating it, because no one

          else had been asked to quote.  I needed other quotations

          as a basis for evaluating the Mason Works quotes.

          Without other quotations --

 

15:34 Q.  Okay.

      A.  -- I had no choice but to accept the quote they gave me.

      Q.  Let's pick up William Lee's affidavit of

          evidence-in-chief.  I need to refer to the quotations

          that they have given to The Pump Room.

      A.  Can I -- William's --

      Q.  Lee Ka Ming.  Affidavit of evidence-in-chief of Lee Ka

          Ming.

      A.  What page would you like me to go to?  Which page?

          Sorry.

      Q.  Can you turn to page 19.

      A.  19?  Sorry, in my book, Lee Ka Meng is from 160 to 300.

      Q.  I see.  Okay.  Sorry.

      A.  19 would be Kenneth Hugh Jones.

      Q.  Page 83.  Let's take a look at page 83 first.  Sorry.

      A.  83 in which documents -- (simultaneous speakers -

          unclear) --

      Q.  -- the bundle of --

      A.  Evidence-in-chief?

      Q.  Evidence-in-chief, yes.

      A.  Page 83?

      Q.  Page 83.

      A.  I am looking at a document which is --

      Q.  Mason Works quotation to The Pump Room for demolition

          works?

 

15:36 A.  Yes.

      Q.  And that sum is for $45,300?

      A.  It is indeed.

      Q.  And you have earlier testified that Poole Associates had

          nothing to do with this quotation; yes?

      A.  I did not testify that.  I have no idea whether they did

          or didn't.

      Q.  Okay.  We will ask -- we will save it for Clark Martin,

          then.  We'll move on.

              The next document that I want you to take a look

          at -- let's take a look at page 187 of the same bundle

          of documents.

      A.  187?

      Q.  187?

      A.  I have it.

      Q.  Now, this is the second contract -- or rather second

          quotation that Pump Room sent to -- sorry, that Mason

          Works sent to The Pump Room.

      A.  Yes, this is --

      Q.  On the 8th of September 2006?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  For the fitting-out works and M&E works?

      A.  Yes.  Right.

      Q.  And the quotation is for almost 600,000, you see there?

      A.  That is correct.

 

15:39 Q.  Can you confirm that after receiving this quotation, you

          asked Ed Poole to sit down with William Lee to go

          through the quotation and to see if there were any works

          that could be omitted to reduce the cost?

      A.  You know, I know it's been mentioned by both Mr Poole

          and by Mr Lee.  I don't recall the exact conversation,

          but I'm prepared to say that it went ahead.  I

          personally don't recall the exact conversation.

      Q.  And subsequent to this quotation, did you look at the

          next one, of page two thousand -- 202 --

      A.  Sorry, two thousand --

      Q.  202, sorry.

      A.  202.  Correct.

              It was reduced to --

      Q.  $474,770.59.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And this was, of course, acceptable to you?

      A.  Well, had I realised what had actually happened, it

          would not have been acceptable to me.  What actually

          happened is that Mr Poole and Mr Lee got together and

          went to work on reducing the cost of the project.

              May I suggest you go to the back page of that

          particular project, 474,000, which will of course

          contain the summary of it.  And you will see there it is

          a summary which totals to $452,000, 22,608.  After GST,

 

15:40     474,700.  The difference between the two projects is how

          much?  I will tell you:  $118,400.  Exactly how was that

          reduction achieved?  With Mr Poole, Mr Lee, working in

          concert.  It was achieved by removing, from every single

          area, the provisional amount, subtotalling it in the

          page before as provisional sum, 214, which basically

          says these are all the provisional sums, and not putting

          those in the total.  There was not a dollar of saving.

          It was an absolute, frankly, deceitful and frankly clear

          indication of collaboration between Mr Poole and Mr Lee

          to fool me and to deceive me.

              I would like them to tell exactly what saving they

          achieved, other than taking the provisional sums out and

          having them separately subtotalled and subtracted from

          the total they asked me to sign.  They fooled me into

          believing they had done $120,000 of savings, and in fact

          they had done nothing of the sort.  It is disgraceful.

      Q.  Now --

      A.  I signed that because I believed them.  I thought these

          people were people I could trust.

      Q.  Just keep your finger on page 215, and look at 200 as

          well.  Now, this is the back page of the quotation

          dated 8th of September, and the quotation dated 10th of

          September.

      A.  What am I looking at?

 

15:42 Q.  Page 200 and 215.  I want you to open to those two

          pages.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And that's the last page of both quotations?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Now, you see there, under "Important Notes", do you

          accept that when they gave you these quotations, what

          was excluded was out of here; ie --

      A.  In both cases --

      Q.  -- structural works -- let me finish -- ie structural

          works --

      A.  Included.

      Q.  -- M&E works --

      A.  Included.

      Q.  -- and micro-piling.  Yes?

      A.  Where is the micro-piling?

      Q.  Okay, piling.

      A.  Where is the piling?

              Specifically, the difference, I'm sorry to tell you,

          is on page 214.  The difference is exact:  118,400.

          Your clients colluded to mislead me.  And I'm sorry if

          you can't recognise it.  It's there in black and white.

      Q.  I just want to point out to you, Mr Graham, that this

          allegation of collusion has not been pleaded --

      A.  You are advising me that they made savings.  I asked you

 

15:43     to show me one saving they made.

      Q.  No, my point is this, and my question is this:  If you

          look at the "Important Notes", it's clear there were

          works being excluded -- (simultaneous speakers -

          unclear) --

      A.  I'm sorry.

      Q.  Yes or no?

      A.  I'm sorry, you said there were savings; I'm asking you

          to demonstrate one single saving.

      COURT:  So your answer should be "no", and that's it.  Keep

          calm.

              So is your answer "no"?

      A.  There is not a single saving.  The exact number --

      COURT:  All right.

      A.  -- was 114 -- 400 --

      COURT:  All right.  Next question, please.

      MR TAN:  This is the question I asked.  If you look at the

          "Important Notes" of both quotations, there were works

          that were not included in the quotation; right?

      A.  Yes, I looked at those works.

              The first one, of course not.  It's a separate

          quotation.

      Q.  Okay.

      A.  The second one, they didn't do that; somebody else did

          that.

 

15:44         "All gas piping"; it sounds small.

              "Construction of mezzanine floor"; we cancelled

          that.

              "Upgrading of incoming ... power source"; sounds

          like lunch money.

              "All direct purchase material"; of course.  I paid

          for that separately.

              "All submissions"; no big deal.

              "All other works", no big deal.

              And "All provisional sum items are base on our best

          estimate", which led me to assume that they were in the

          above, and they were not.  They were separate, taken out

          to deceive me.

              That, I looked at; I thought, that is $100,000,

          $150,000, maximum.  And in fact it worked out at,

          frankly, $800,000-plus.

              And that's one reason why I am upset at this pair

          and one reason why I view them as colluding to deceive

          me.

      Q.  Mr Graham, do you accept that when Mason Works gave you

          this quotation, the M&E drawings and the structural

          drawings were still not ready?

      A.  This is --

      Q.  This is in September, early September.

      A.  And Mr Poole's been working on this since May --

 

15:45 Q.  No, no, my question is this:  When Mason Works gave you

          this quotation, do you accept that the M&E drawings and

          the structural drawings were not ready?  In fact, it's

          quite clear, you look at the -- (simultaneous speakers -

          unclear) --

      A.  They say that, but I have no idea whether or not.  Ask

          the project manager.

      Q.  It says here -- "d".  Sorry.  Let's view it.

              "d.  Construction of mezzanine floor.  (pending

          design information from consultant)".

              Do you see that?

      A.  We didn't do the mezzanine floor.

      Q.  "e.  Upgrading of existing incoming power source, if

          required.  (pending information from consultant)".

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Do you see that?

      A.  I looked at all of this, and I thought, $100,000.

          Maybe 150 --

      Q.  You assumed that there was $100,000?

      A.  Yeah.

      Q.  Yes, but my point -- or my question is this:  When they

          gave you this quotation, do you accept that the M&E

          drawings and the structural drawings were not completed

          yet?

      A.  I accept.

 

15:46 Q.  Thank you.

              And when you received this quotation, did you ask

          Poole Associates to suggest another contractor?

      A.  Sorry?

      Q.  When you received the quotation from Mason Works, in

          September 8 and 10, did you ask Poole Associates to

          recommend another contractor?

      A.  My assumption was that -- this is September --

      Q.  No, answer my question first:  Did you ask --

      A.  I did not -- I did not ask Poole Associates --

      Q.  Thank you.

      A.  -- to do that.

      Q.  Did you ask if Poole Associates had carried out a

          tender?

      A.  My question then, and my question since --

      COURT:  Did you, or did you not?

      A.  I asked why I had no basis for evaluating this proposal.

          I'm looking at a proposal for $600,000; I have no basis

          for evaluating it.  I asked Mr Poole, "Please, I have no

          basis for saying anything here; I presume.  See if you

          can do something about cutting the cost down."

              And what got was this frankly deceitful nonsense

          between the pair of them.

      Q.  Did you ask Poole Associates if a tender was carried

          out?  Yes or no?  Again, it's a simple question.

 

15:47 A.  I asked, "Why am I looking at a quotation" --

      COURT:  Did you ask whether there was a tender?

      A.  I asked, "Where are the competing" --

      COURT:  Did you ask whether there was a tender,

          specifically?

      A.  I asked, "Where are the competing tender documents?"

      COURT:  So you did, then.

      A.  Yes.

      COURT:  Then why don't you just say so?

      A.  My apologies.

      COURT:  He did.

      MR TAN:  You did.  And did Poole Associates tell you that

          they had carried out a tender, when you asked them that

          question?

      A.  As far as I can recall, no.

              My -- I did not say "Have you carried out a tender";

          I asked the question, "Where are the other competing

          tenders to allow me to evaluate this?  I can't evaluate

          this.  I need something.  Why haven't I got it?"

      Q.  Now, what we have seen in these two quotations is that

          -- and the initial quotation for 599, and subsequently

          it's been reduced to 474.  I have looked at Crispin's

          report, your expert; he doesn't dispute that 474,770.59

          represents a fair value for the works carried out.

      A.  May I comment on this, your Honour?

 

15:48 COURT:  Sure.

      A.  Why does Crispin, on the one hand, stand queried for not

          having an in-depth, to-the-dollar accurate, incredibly

          sophisticated analysis of costs, and then we simply pass

          over the fact that he says these two are alike?

          Crispin's job was not to produce a detailed list of

          items totalling a specific sum so that I could then

          claim this sum from Mason Works.  Crispin was asked to

          do something very simple.  He was asked to give me an

          indication whether or not the pricing in this project

          was reasonable.  He was not asked to produce a figure

          which I could charge back to Mason Works, at all.

              Crispin was hammered, over the last two days, for

          not having the most perfect defence.  He was hammered

          for not having an ability to work out the cost of each

          joint.  He was asked details --

      COURT:  You are making a claim in court, and you are

          bringing Crispin as your expert witness.  How can --

      A.  Crispin's exert witness was not to identify the sum of

          money; it was to identify the fact that there had been

          overcharging generally.

      COURT:  Thank you very much.

              Let's move on.

      MR TAN:  The point, really, that I'm --

      COURT:  Mr Vijay?

 

15:50 MR VIJAY:  No, no, these are things that I will submit --

      COURT:  No, but if he is saying Crispin is not here to tell

          us how much, then how am I to know how much your clients

          have been overcharged?  He came to a figure.

      A.  Could I have a -- could I have a comment, please?

              The figure is -- what we are claiming is not because

          it is the correct figure; it is because it is the only

          figure we have available.  Because when we went to Mason

          Works to explain to them that there was a question over

          whether the pricing was fair and reasonable, they

          refused to discuss it.  Crispin asked for information to

          allow it to be refined.  He asked if we could work with

          them.

      COURT:  I don't think you should be telling me what Crispin

          is asking.  Crispin sat down there and he gave certain

          evidence.  If you take the view now that Crispin is not

          doing any evaluation and just saying whether it's

          charging more or less -- (simultaneous speakers -

          unclear) --

      A.  Your Honour, if you look at the terms of reference --

      COURT:  Are you relying on the -- (simultaneous speakers -

          unclear) -- of Crispin or not?

      MR VIJAY:  Yes, your Honour.

      COURT:  He's saying that --

      A.  But, your Honour, may I say, the terms of reference of

 

15:51     Crispin's report was to comment on the reasonableness of

          the pricing and that is all.  He did a reasonably

          professional assessment of the cost.

      COURT:  I leave your witnesses to say what they like, okay,

          but, ultimately, Mr Vijay, if you are appearing before

          the High Court, you must know exactly what you are

          claiming and you have a figure, and now you are telling

          me that the role of the expert witness was merely to see

          whether there was overcharging.

      A.  But the reason I'm claiming that figure is because it is

          agreed between Mason Works and ourselves that the

          figures that Crispin produces will be the definitive

          figure, but they --

      COURT:  And this comes back to my point; what are you

          producing Crispin as, the expert witness or the person

          whose figure is binding?

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, Crispin --

      COURT:  I suggest you think about all this before you

          submit, all right, to be fair to you.  Take your time.

              All right, you said Mr Sreeni is chasing you for

          3.45?

      MR TAN:  Yes, your Honour, and I overshot that a little bit.

          I will try and wrap that up in five or ten minutes, with

          a few quick points.

              I just wanted to point out to Mr Graham that Crispin

 

15:52     doesn't dispute this 474,779, he has not said anything

          about that, yes?

      A.  Which I think is very fair.  If he was biased, he would

          have -- (simultaneous speakers - unclear) --

      Q.  I need to move on with the question.  You also said that

          you know that certain works were not quoted for this in

          quotation, so when they subsequently came in, they came

          in as variation orders, yes?

      A.  They came in as variation orders, a dimension above

          anything I could possibly expect.  As I say, my

          assessment just looking at it is all these bits and

          pieces are quite small.

      Q.  And when these variation orders came in, you tasked Fred

          Wong and Shaharin to take a look at these quotations?

      A.  I did not ask Shaharin to take a look at the quotation.

          He has no basis for doing it.  My wife asked Fred Wong

          would he make sure he understood what was being agreed

          to, so that he could keep track of what was and was not

          done, so that he could tell her whether he had to pay

          the invoices.

      Q.  In other words, before you signed the quotation, did

          Fred go through the variation orders?

      A.  To understand when they were about, Mr Wong --

      Q.  No, did he or did he not?  "Yes" or "no"?  Yes, he went

          through them, no, he didn't -- (simultaneous speakers -

 

15:53     unclear) --

      A.  -- (unclear -- simultaneous speakers) -- as far as

          I recall.

      Q.  Sorry?

      A.  I believe he went through some but not all.

      Q.  Did you ask Poole Associates to take a look at these

          variation orders that came in subsequently?

      A.  I did not.  But clearly Poole Associates and Mason Works

          worked very closely on the 600,000 --

      COURT:  Nobody asked you about these details.  Otherwise we

          will never finish, all right.  Next question.

      MR TAN:  I am going to quickly wrap up my case.  I'm going

          to put a series of questions to you, and you can either

          agree or disagree.  You don't have to explain it any

          more, Mr Graham.  I just need to put my case to you.

              I'm putting it to you that Poole Associates were

          never required to submit drawings to the authorities --

          do you agree or disagree?

      A.  Poole Associates were required to --

      Q.  No, it's just "yes" or "no".  We'll go through this,

          I just want to put my case to you --

      A.  Directly?  You mean directly?  Yes.

      Q.  The right answer.  I'm also putting to you that Poole

          Associates were not responsible for the structural

          works -- "yes" or "no"?

 

15:54 A.  Directly, no.

      Q.  No they are not responsible directly for the structural

          works?

      A.  The project manager -- (simultaneous speakers -

          unclear) --

      COURT:  That's what he said.

      MR TAN:  Yes, your Honour.

              I am also putting to you that the 1st defendants

          were not required to carry out project management of the

          entire project?

      A.  I refer you to the contract.

      Q.  How about just saying "yes" or "no"?

      A.  They were responsible for project management and they

          sued me for the full --

      COURT:  No, he didn't ask you whether they sued you.  We

          have to move on.  It's either "yes" or "no".

      MR TAN:  I am also going to put to you that insofar as

          project management was concerned, at best, Poole

          Associates' scope of work was limited to the FF+E

          works -- do you agree or disagree?

      A.  Disagree.

      COURT:  That's the way.  Move on.

      MR TAN:  I'm also going to put to you that the

          1st defendants, i.e. Poole Associates, were not

          responsible for appointing Mason Works as contractor to

 

15:55     the project -- do you agree or disagree?

      A.  Disagree.

      Q.  I'm also putting it to you that, apart from that

          quotation dated 8 September 2006, you never asked Poole

          Associates to look at the quotations submitted by Mason

          Works -- do you agree or disagree?

      A.  It was not my job.

      Q.  Do you agree or disagree?

      A.  I agree.

      Q.  And I am also putting to you that you had asked Fred

          Wong and Shaharin -- or rather, let's take it one step

          at a time -- I'm putting it to you that you asked Fred

          Wong to review the prices and the quotation submitted by

          works?

      A.  Absolutely disagree.  We never asked Fred Wong to look

          at any prices --

      COURT:  That's all.  Next.

      MR TAN:  I'm also putting it to you that at no time did the

          first defendant Poole Associates or 3rd defendant

          Ed Poole fraudulently represent to you that Mason

          Works's quotations were market value?

      A.  I've just explained a very categoric example when they

          did try --

      Q.  Just agree or disagree.

      A.  I disagree.

 

15:56 Q.  I am putting it to you that, in any event, you never

          relied on Poole Associates to evaluate Mason Works'

          quotation -- agree or disagree?

      A.  Disagree.

      MR TAN:  All right.  I have no further questions, your

          Honour.

      COURT:  I think we should let our typists have a break at

          this juncture.

      (3.57 pm)

                             (Short break)

      (4.13 pm)

                  Cross-examination by MR SREENIVASAN

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Now, Mr Graham, in the course of

          cross-examination, you have described yourself, among

          other things, as an ignoramus as far as construction is

          concerned; am I right?

      A.  I recall that comment.

      Q.  The other comment you made was, when it came to M&E

          works, you know less than anybody else in this

          courtroom; am I right?

      A.  I know nothing about M&E works.

      Q.  No, forget about what you know.  Your comment was you

          know less than anybody else in the courtroom; am I

          right?

      A.  Well, I have no real assessment of what everybody else

 

16:14     in the courtroom knows, so it's a facetious comments.

          I apologise for being facetious, your Honour --

      Q.  You have to speak up.  You don't have to go near the

          mic, just speak up from where you are.

              You have made the proposition that a person who is

          an ID or designer, it's the normal practice that such

          a person is also the project manager; am I right?

      A.  I said in my experience.

      Q.  And this is the experience that you have classified as

          being an ignoramus in construction; am I right?

      A.  I have an experience directly in seven and indirectly in

          12 projects.  Based on that experience, the comment I'm

          making is correct.

      Q.  And you have classified that experience as being

          an ignoramus in construction?

      A.  Can I suggest that that was a comment made just to

          underline a point.  It was not -- (simultaneous speakers

          - unclear) --

      Q.  To underline the point that you are an ignoramus in

          construction?

      A.  I do not have experience personally directly in

          construction activities.  I have, however, had

          experience of dealing with interior designers and

          project managers, which is not actually constructing,

          it's dealing with designers and project managers.

 

16:15 Q.  You did the Quayfront seafood; am I right?

      A.  The restaurant was called Quayside Seafood.

      Q.  And when my learned friend Mr Tan asked you questions,

          you described it as al fresco dining; am I right?

      A.  That's correct.

      Q.  No structural works; am I right?

      A.  You are wrong.  There was a substantial kitchen

          constructed.

      Q.  And that kitchen construction was done by Sommerville?

      A.  No, there was a building constructed.  The kitchen

          equipment and design was done by Sommerville.

      Q.  Okay.  Besides being an ignoramus in construction and

          your previous experience, you are relying on the actual

          wording of the contract with Poole Associates to say

          that Poole Associates are project managers; am I right?

      A.  It's the wording which spells out in detail exactly what

          he's responsible for, and I am relying on that --

          (simultaneous speakers - unclear) --

      Q.  And you would agree that the best person to interpret

          that wording would be his Honour; am I right?

      A.  His Honour is the best person to interpret everything in

          this room as far as I'm concerned.

      Q.  You assumed -- and I'm using your own words again --

          that the normal -- prior to the signing of the agreement

          on 6 July, that the normal words and conditions would

 

16:17     apply; am I right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  And this is based on your belief that this is the usual

          practice in the industry; am I right?

      A.  It was based on the fact that Poole Associates were the

          project manager and designer for the previous

          restaurants that Clark was involved in.  He basically

          recommended them as designer and project managers, not

          just as designers.  Mr Poole was recommended as

          a designer and a project manager.

      Q.  Okay.  And I'm just trying to -- (unclear --

          simultaneous speakers) -- Mr Graham, when I said this is

          a usual practice in industry, I was actually quoting

          words that you had said earlier today -- do you agree?

      A.  I was very specific.  I said standalone independent

          restaurants of half a million to a million in size, it

          doesn't really justify having a separate project

          manager; there's no need for it, if you have a designer.

      Q.  You have been sued by your previous contractors in two

          instances; am I right?  And I'll just refresh your

          memory -- or rather not you, Quayside Dining -- let me

          get the specifics.

              The first is by Tong Hai Yang Construction Pte Ltd;

          am I right?

      A.  If you could please elaborate so I can --

 

16:19 Q.  Quayside Dining was sued by Tong Hai Yang Construction

          Pte Ltd?

      A.  Can you refresh me more?

      Q.  No.  This all I have.  Have you been sued that often?

      A.  No --

      Q.  How many times have Quayside been sued?

      A.  I only recall one, to be honest.

      Q.  Okay.  And was it Tong Hai Yang Construction?

      A.  I think so, yes.

      Q.  And Quayside Dining went in with a counterclaim; am

          I right?

      A.  If I recall this correctly, and do forgive, my memory is

          a bit lapsed and I'm beginning to get past the -- the

          case in point was an argument over some -- what do you

          call those tiles -- you know, we've got all the very

          small tiles, mosaic tiles, the entire flat surfaces of

          Quayside Dining is covered in multi-coloured mosaic

          tiles.

      Q.  We have to get to my question.  You were sued by Tong

          Hai?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And Quayside Dining counterclaimed; am I right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And affidavits were exchanged; am I right?

      A.  It's four or five years ago, I'm trying to remember.  We

 

16:20     actually did appear in court, but the case was settled

          before it came to trial.

      Q.  Then you have another case where your company was sued

          for --

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, could I intercept at this stage and

          ask what's the relevance -- (simultaneous speakers -

          unclear) --

      MR SREENIVASAN:  You'll find out in two questions' time,

          faster than your interruption.

              Your company was sued by New Art Interior Pte Ltd?

      A.  I remember that name.

      Q.  Which restaurant was that for?

      A.  I can't remember, to be honest.

      Q.  Was Mr Crispin your expert in either of those two cases?

      A.  I have used Crispin once.  It was to do with the mosaic

          tiles.

      Q.  So you are very familiar, therefore, with Mr Crispin's

          expertise; am I right?

      A.  In my entire life, I have been in court --

      Q.  Are you familiar with Mr Crispin's expertise?

      A.  I used Mr Crispin's expertise once.  He was the only

          expert I knew.

      Q.  Let's move on.  You are an accountant by training; am

          I right?

      A.  Yes.

 

16:21 Q.  And you heard Crispin's evidence that, as far as the

          first quotation of 8 or 10 September was concerned, he

          had no deductions to make; am I right?

      A.  Crispin evaluated it and felt that the gross amount of

          the overall figure was reasonable.

      Q.  So I'm right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  That's a lot easier in the evenings.

      A.  My brain is not quite in gear.  I do apologise, your

          Honour.  I'm struggling now.

      Q.  Now, the other works that are in dispute relate to

          structural works, mainly to structural works and

          mechanical and electrical works; am I right?

      A.  The most significant was the brewhouse, which was

          $270,000, and that is entirely really structural work,

          as I'm sure you know.

      Q.  So I'm right?

      A.  You're always right.

      Q.  Thank you.  So if it relates mainly to structural work,

          the quotation were given in terms of structural work

          from 8 November onwards; am I right?  The first one is

          8 November and then there were a couple after that?

      A.  No, no.  The first quotation was 8 September --

      Q.  No, for structural works.  That's why you have to listen

          carefully.  Mr Graham.

 

16:22 A.  There were other -- how can I put it -- there were other

          variations between 8 September and 8 November.  I would

          have to go and check whether there was any structural

          work there or not, but certainly 8 November was a huge

          structural project.

      Q.  Now the best persons to have asked advice on as to the

          costing of structural works would be the structural

          consultant; am I right?

      A.  Mr Crispin was chosen by Mason Works -- (simultaneous

          speakers - unclear) --

      Q.  No, no, hang on.  Listen to my question.

      A.  I am not able to assess who is the best person to --

          (simultaneous speakers - unclear) --

      Q.  -- (simultaneous speakers - unclear) -- don't know --

      A.  -- and we agreed on Mr Crispin --

      Q.  Mr Graham, answer the question.  This is not a debate.

          This is a cross-examination.  Do you agree that the best

          person to ask for an assessment of the cost of

          structural works would be the structural consultants --

          "yes", "no", "I don't know"?

      A.  I'm not qualified to comment on who is the best

          consultant to choose for anything to do with

          construction.  I chose the only man I knew and Mason

          Works agreed with that and they did know him.

      Q.  Do you agree that the best person to assess the cost of

 

16:24     mechanical and electrical works would be the M&E

          consultants?

      A.  We can't have consultants for everything.  We had one

          agreed consultant, it was Mr Crispin, I'm perfectly

          prepared to agree with everything you say.  The point is

          we only have one consultant and it was Mr Crispin and it

          was jointly chosen and we both had experience of him,

          and Mason Works, frankly, have far more experience than

          I have in choosing consultants, and if Mr Crispin was

          wrong, I would suggest they should have fixed it, not

          me.  I only know one.

      Q.  Can I ask you whether the M&E consultants had been

          appointed prior to 8 November?

      A.  You're talking about for The Pump Room project itself?

      Q.  Yes.

      A.  You're talking about the Project Portfolio people?

      Q.  That's right.

      A.  They had the job.

      Q.  Prior to 8 November; am I right?

      A.  Of course, I mentioned to you that these things --

          (simultaneous speakers - unclear) --

      Q.  Similarly, the structural consultants had also been

          appointed prior to 8 November; am I right -- RSP

          Architects?

      A.  RSP had been appointed before 8 November.

 

16:25 Q.  So, if you wanted any advice on the M&E or structural

          costing, you could have gone to your M&E and structural

          consultants; am I right?

      A.  My issue was not M&E specifically or structural

          specifically or this specifically -- (simultaneous

          speakers - unclear) --

      Q.  Listen to my -- Mr Graham, I'm going to interrupt you --

      A.  Yes, but my --

      Q.  Answer my question first.  You could have --

          (simultaneous speakers - unclear) --

      MR VIJAY:  I think in all fairness, in this instance he is

          answering the question.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  No, he's not yet, he can answer "yes" or

          "no" and then go --

      MR VIJAY:  No, not all questions can be answered "yes" or

          "no" --

      MR SREENIVASAN:  With an honest witnesses they can.

      MR VIJAY:  All witnesses in this court are honest?

      A.  I find that offensive, your Honour.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  So I will repeat my question.  You could

          have gone to the M&E and structural consultants to get

          their views on the costing; am I right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Now, when you had your Tong Hai case, the mosaic case

          and you had Mr Crispin as your expert, you were quite

 

16:26     pleased with his performance?

      A.  Well, it wasn't difficult because the mosaic fell like

          snow, and he simply was just an expert to give

          credibility.

      Q.  As a matter of interest, when you wrote Crispin's name

          on the 8 November quotation, did you tell Mason Works,

          "By the way, I have used this guy before as my expert".

      A.  Both Mason Works and I had used him before and we were

          both aware of that.

      COURT:  So the question is did you tell?

      A.  Yes.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Now, do you agree that it was one of the

          conditions of Poole Associates' contract that the

          contract is only binding when first paid, when payment

          of the first 10 per cent is made?

      A.  I would have to check that.

      Q.  Let's check it.  Are you more comfortable with your own

          affidavit?  Why don't we go to your affidavit?  We'll go

          to page 114 -- sorry, 113 -- turn to page 115 of your

          affidavit.

      A.  I'm quite prepared to accept whatever you say as

          correct.  My view is that Poole had been project manager

          and designer since early May.

      Q.  Hang on, hang on.  You have got to listen to my

          question.  You can't go on repeating your answers.

 

16:28 A.  No, I'm accepting what you say.

      Q.  So just accept that Poole Associates would be appointed

          upon first payment or first payment would have to be

          made upon appointment; am I right?

      A.  That's what it says --

      Q.  No, no.  Look at 115.

      A.  Then I have to find it.  Where is this again?

      Q.  Page 115 of your own affidavit.

      A.  Let me find that.

      Q.  "Upon appointment deposit 10 per cent", can you see

          that?

      A.  Yes, I see that.

      Q.  So the first payment will correspond with appointment,

          do you agree, according to the contract?

      A.  That's what the contract says.

      Q.  And when was first payment made?

      A.  I would have to check.  I do not recall offhand.

      Q.  In July; am I right?

      A.  I would have to check.  I don't know offhand.

      Q.  Why don't we turn to page 113, and we see in the first

          page, "Budget to be determined"; am I right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  If you look under "Consultants", the architect is named

          as RSP Architects; am I right?

      A.  Correct.


 

16:30 Q.  If you look under "M&E", "to be determined" and under

          "structural engineers" it says "RSP Architects"; am I

          right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Then there is a graphic designer who does the menus and

          the cards, et cetera; am I right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  And then you've got a designer consultant, Poole

          Associates, agreed?

      A.  That's what it says.

      Q.  And their scope says "full scope interior architecture",

          do you see that?

      A.  I see it.

      Q.  Is M&E covered under interior architecture?

      A.  The clauses in this project, in this contract about

          project management are quite clear; M&E is covered under

          project management.

      Q.  You see this is where you are not being responsive to my

          question.  My question is very simple.  Is M&E covered

          under full scope interior architecture?

      A.  I would not be able to comment on that.  I'm not sure

          what "full scope interior architecture" means --

          (unclear -- simultaneous speakers) --

      Q.  You're not sure.  Are structural works covered under

          full scope interior architecture?

 

16:31 A.  I cannot comment on that.

      Q.  Is the actual brewery construction covered under full

          scope interior architecture?

      A.  The word "architecture" to me means anything to do with

          construction and building to me -- is my interpretation

          of that correct?  I do not know.  I cannot define this

          for you.  An architect for me knows everything about

          buildings, everything about buildings and

          construction -- is that correct or not?  I leave it to

          you to --

      Q.  But your understanding and your assertion in this case

          is based on what you have just said; the architect is

          responsible for everything involved in the building --

          am I right?

      A.  My understanding was that Mr Edward Poole was clearly

          responsible for the design and for the project

          management of this fairly small project.

      Q.  Of the entire construction, am I right?

      A.  Of the supervision of those people involved in the

          project.

      Q.  Including the structural consultants?

      A.  Excluding the kitchen specialists and excluding the

          brewery equipment specialists, which were not to do with

          construction, but everywhere else, he is there to

          co-ordinate these people.  He has to co-ordinate.

 

16:32         I am not suggesting for a second that he is

          a specialist in everything, but, as a project manager,

          my understanding is he has to co-ordinate these people.

      Q.  Let's go back to your understanding.  Because do you

          agree that the scope of work of Poole Associates is full

          scope interior architecture?

      A.  That's what it says there, but it's not specific --

          (unclear -- simultaneous speakers) --

      Q.  So do you agree that we need to understand this term

          before we can determine his scope of work?

      A.  I would suggest that it is spelt out very carefully in

          many, many clauses in the contract.  To chose one clause

          and try to interpret what that might mean, you are

          missing the specifics, which are spelt out in great

          detail later, and I would suggest we go to the

          specifics, rather than the generalities.

      Q.  Mr Graham, now what is or is not included in the full

          scope must be seen in the light of the practices of the

          industry; am I right?

      A.  You would have to define your "industry", if you are

          talking about --

      Q.  Full scope architectural --

      A.  For small --

      Q.  -- for restaurants?

      A.  For small independent restaurants with a budget of

 

16:33     500,000 to 1/1.5 million.

      Q.  We don't have a budget here, so we'll just take the

          small independent restaurants.

      A.  As I say, in my experience and apparently in the

          experience of Mr Clark Martin, with the specific

          Mr Poole whom we are talking about, it has always been

          project management included with design, and that is

          what I based my understanding on.

      Q.  But now the question is --

      A.  And anything other than that, I don't know.

      Q.  The question is project management of what?  According

          to you, it includes project management of M&E works and

          project management of structural works; am I right?  Is

          that what you are saying?

      A.  I am not saying anything on that basis.  I am saying

          that what is --

      Q.  Mr Graham, stop and listen to my question.  I don't want

          to be rude to you, I have been raised not to be rude to

          my elders, but you have to respect the system in the

          court, this is not a pub discussion.

              Is it your understanding that Mr Ed Poole's scope of

          work included supervision or co-ordination or structural

          work?

      A.  It included the supervision --

      COURT:  It's either "yes" or "no" for that.

 

16:35 A.  Yes, it did.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Same -- is it your position that it

          included mechanical and electrical work?

      A.  Yes, that would be my position.

      Q.  I'm suggesting or putting it to you that the scope of

          Mr Poole's work was limited to interior architecture and

          the scope of his project management work was also

          limited to interior architecture -- agree or disagree?

      A.  May I read the specific phrase?

      Q.  Can you agree or disagree first?

      A.  I disagree.

      Q.  Fine --

      A.  Because the specific the scope of services --

      Q.  Hang on, hold on.  We have agreed that his Honour will

          do the contractual interpretation, not you, not me, so

          let's move on.

              Mr Graham?

      A.  I'm listening.

      Q.  Do you now agree that you have earlier said that the

          8 September quotation -- and I use your exact words --

          is deceitful nonsense?

      A.  No.

      Q.  You did say that, I wrote it down.

      A.  I said that the movement between the 8 September

          quotation and the 12 September quotation, because there

 

16:36     are two separate quotations, the comment that Mr Poole

          and Mr Lee had got together and somehow created

          an $118,400 saving was deceitful nonsense.

      Q.  Do you agree that your expert, Mr Crispin, has accepted

          the valuation for the works done under the 8 and

          12 September quotations?

      A.  What we are talking about here --

      Q.  Do you agree that your expert has accepted the valuation

          of that work?

      COURT:  "Yes" or "no"?

      A.  Yes.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Do you agree that your expert has not

          deducted any sums from that figure?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Do you agree that, even on your case, that all your

          expert is supposed to do is to say whether it's fair or

          not fair, he has not described it as unfair.

      A.  What was taken out --

      COURT:  "Yes" or "no", please.

      A.  Yes, the expert did not take anything out of that.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Let's look at the issue of micro-piling.

          Is it your case that Mr Poole should have anticipated

          the need for micro-piling?

      A.  Mr Poole was aware of the need for micro-piling from

          very early on.

 

16:38 Q.  And this need for micro-piling was pointed out by RSP

          Architects; am I right?

      A.  Early in the process.

      Q.  Because they were the structural engineers; am I right?

      A.  They were the structural engineers.

      Q.  And they were responsible for making sure that the

          structure could take the load; am I right?

      A.  They designed the micro-piling I believe, you are

          correct.

      Q.  But they had one limitation in designing the

          micro-piling, and that is the structure had to support

          the vat or the vats; am I right?

      A.  That's why micro-piling was necessary.

      Q.  And these vats were purchased in New Zealand; am I

          right?

      A.  That is correct.

      Q.  And these vats were going to be full of beer when the

          microbrewery was in operation; am I right?

      A.  They would have a load of 30,000 kilograms.

      Q.  That's right.  30 tonnes; am I right?

      A.  T-O-N-N-E-S, yes.

      Q.  Clarke Quay is a conservation building; am I right?

      A.  That is correct.

      Q.  So when somebody goes and buys the vats they should

          think whether the vats can fit into the building; am I

 

16:39     right?

      A.  There are no vats that can fit into the building.  The

          surface load that floor can take is less than 5

          kilonewtons.  It was fairly evident from early on we

          would have a problem, that is a fact.

              On the other hand, Mr Poole had the job of surveying

          and I would suggest that, as an architect, this is the

          first question that should have popped into his mind.

          He knew from the beginning we were a brewery.

      Q.  Do you agree that the correct people who should be

          thinking about what the floor can support would be the

          structural engineer?

      A.  They were actually hired for that purpose, yes.

      Q.  That's right.  So what happens is Mr Poole draws in

          where the vats should be and the structural engineer

          comes out with the structural plan to support that

          layout; am I right?

      A.  Mr Poole was not responsible for designing, as

          I understand it, the structural plan to support it.

              Mr Poole was responsible for making sure that the

          project advanced and that the structure that was being

          constructed in terms of dimensions and in terms of floor

          strength was being properly handled by the appropriate

          expert.

      Q.  But Mr Poole has to rely on RSP Architects on what is

 

16:40     the necessary structural work; am I right?

      A.  That is his job as the project manager, to appropriately

          work with the experts.

      Q.  Unless, of course, his project management work was

          limited to full interior design -- interior

          architecture; am I right?

      A.  We're back to this question of defining "full interior

          architecture".

      Q.  That's right.  Okay.  So let's move on, then.

              RSP Architects, until they gave you the structural

          plan, you couldn't get the structural work done; am I

          right?

      A.  I think that is correct, yes.

      Q.  And RSP Architects only finished their structural plan

          in October; am I right?

      A.  I'm prepared to accept that, but I have to question why,

          because if Mr Poole had been on the case, perhaps we

          could have done it a little bit faster.

      Q.  So Mr Poole is responsible for RSP Architects not doing

          their work on time?

      A.  I'm not saying they didn't do their work on time --

      Q.  So what are you saying?

      A.  I'm saying that if there were delays, I would like some

          evidence that Mr Poole was actually working on

          shortening those delays.  I have never seen any evidence

 

16:42     to that.  Mr Poole --

      Q.  Do you know what the cost of the delay was?

      A.  The cause of the delay?

      Q.  In coming up with the structural drawings.

      A.  I would have to go back and get some detailed

          information on that.

      Q.  So you don't know?

      A.  I'm trying to remember.  At the moment, my brain is --

      Q.  Think.  Because my next question is, whose fault was it?

      A.  Well, I have see demonstrable discussions between

          Mr Poole and RSP, arguing about a number of things to do

          with it.

      Q.  Yes.  So what -- whose fault was the delay?

      A.  I would have to go back and check.

      Q.  You don't know?

      A.  I cannot remember at this moment in time.

      Q.  Do you know that according to Mr Chris Shelley's plan,

          the micro-piling was supposed to be done in July 2006?

      A.  That would be a very desirable thing to happen.

      Q.  No, no, according to his plan.  Would you look at his

          affidavit --

      A.  My understanding is he may or may not have liked that,

          but it takes two months to get approval.  The main

          delay, basically, is it's going to get through URA

          approval, it's a two-month process.

 

16:43 Q.  That's right.  So if the drawings were only completed in

          October 2006, then you're going to have a long delay in

          getting it approved?

      A.  I think I should clarify for you that I am not claiming

          anything from Mr Poole because of the delay in the

          brewery.  I am not claiming anything at all from

          Mr Poole about the delay in the brewery.  So talking

          about the delay in the brewery is actually quite

          irrelevant.

      Q.  Okay.  Good.

      A.  My criticism of Mr Poole is that he failed to solve a

          very, very simple problem, which was --

      Q.  Okay.  Hang on.  Now we are making some progress.

              So the delay in the restaurant is only two months;

          am I right?

      A.  One week.  To get approval to build the restaurant --

      Q.  No, the delay in opening the restaurant, according to

          you, was instead of October, it was opened in December;

          am I right?

      A.  Two months, one week.

      Q.  Two months and one week?  But that's not what you say in

          your affidavit, Mr Graham.  In your affidavit, you are

          asking for a period of five months.

      A.  Shall I explain that to you?

      Q.  No, no, what are you asking now?  Two months and one

 

16:44     week, or five months?

      A.  I -- I say I have to explain that to you.

      Q.  No, tell me which one first.

      A.  I'm asking for the impact over the five-month period.

          Because when you delay by two months, you also delay in

          the take-off in subsequent months.

      Q.  Okay.

      A.  I thought it was calculated quite clearly.  If you would

          like me to take you through it, because you are an

          accounting expert --

      Q.  I will do that.  I will do that.  You heard in court I

          did get an A in accounting --

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  -- but that doesn't make me an expert.

              Now, so let's get this straight.  You have got a

          claim against Ed Poole and Poole Associates for two

          months, one week, delay in opening the restaurant?

      A.  Plus the impact on the subsequent months.

      Q.  Plus the impact -- well, that's the effect?

      A.  That's the effect.  Exactly.

      Q.  The breach is this.  You are also claiming for the

          additional costs of construction that you had to pay

          Mr Ong's clients; am right?

      A.  This is the 550 identified by our joint expert.

      Q.  That's right.  So these are the two claims that you have

 

16:45     against Ed Poole?

      A.  No, there's a third claim.  Mr Poole was -- signed a

          contract to do a particular job for us.  Mr Poole --

      Q.  So you want back your $58,000?

      A.  Please.

      Q.  Okay.  Thank you.

              So now let's take your $515,000 --

      A.  550.

      Q.  550; okay.

              You are saying that you overpaid Mr Ong's client,

          because Mr Ong's client and Pump Room have agreed on a

          joint expert to assess the value of works.  Am I right?

      A.  That is what I am saying, yes.

      Q.  So if the expert says that the full amount is the

          correct value, you have got no arguments.  Am I right?

      A.  I have no arguments against Mr Poole.  One can only

          claim once.

      Q.  Yes.  And you have no argument against Mr Ong, as well,

          Mr Ong's clients, Mason Works, if the expert says the

          full amount is due; am I right?

      A.  I'm trying to work out what the point of the question

          is.

      Q.  No, don't work out the points.  Just tell the truth.

      A.  If 550 is paid, would I have a claim against Mason

          Works?

 

16:46 Q.  If Mr Crispin says what they have charged you is fair,

          do you have a problem with that?

      A.  None at all.

      Q.  Okay.  So your basis of saying that Mr Ong's client has

          overcharged The Pump Room is what Mr Crispin says is

          fair or unfair; am I right?

      A.  I'm relying on -- the report of the joint expert

          identifies 550,000 as the payable figure.

      Q.  Shakespeare said lawyers equivocate.  So -- you are an

          accountant; let's behave like accountants.

              Your case is, because both parties have agreed to be

          bound by Crispin's assessment, and because Crispin has

          cut off $550,000, then they are only entitled to what

          Crispin says they are entitled to; am I right?

      A.  Crispin has said that the overcharge was $550,000.

      Q.  That's right.

      A.  I am perfectly happy to discuss that.

      Q.  No, no; hang on.  I'm talking about your case.  Your

          case is that because Crispin has said they have

          overcharged by 550,000, they are not entitled to that

          sum.  Am I right?

      A.  I think we have clearly established --

      Q.  Is that your case?

      A.  My case is that Crispin's figure of 550 has been

          established.  I am perfectly happy to review any input

 

16:48     from Mason Works or anyone else --

      COURT:  His question --

      MR SREENIVASAN:  I will take it slowly, your Honour; this is

          an important point.

              You have said that on 8th November, Mason Works and

          Pump Room agreed that the contract sum will be adjusted

          to such figure as Crispin says is fair.  Is that your

          case?

      A.  That is my case.

      Q.  Good.  Let's take it one baby step from there:  If

          Crispin says Mason Works' quotation, the whole thing,

          and taking your case, all the other variations is fair,

          you would pay in full; am I right?

      A.  If it was fair, I would pay --

      Q.  In full?

      A.  If Crispin said it was fair --

      Q.  Yeah.

      A.  Absolutely.  I was -- honestly, I wanted to pay.

      Q.  Hang on, hang on --

      A.  I wanted to get this behind me.

      Q.  -- let's take it one step back.

              And you are now claiming that you are overcharged

          because Crispin says it's worth $550,000 less; am I

          right?

      A.  I am claiming that Crispin has identified $550,000.  Is

 

16:49     that the correct number?  I don't know.

      Q.  Hang on; no, no, no.  You are claiming 550 --

      A.  I would be prepared to listen to any argument against

          it --

      Q.  You are prepared to listen to anything now because we

          have seen Crispin's evidence.

              Let's get back to your case.  It is your case that

          Pump Room is entitled to $550,000 discount, cut off,

          Mason Works' full fees, because Crispin has said so.  Am

          I right?

      A.  I am not so unreasonable.

      Q.  Is that your case?  Because if you are not

          unreasonable --

      A.  I am happy to sit down and identify --

      Q.  -- and that's your case, we can go somewhere else.

      A.  I am happy to sit down and identify any reasonable

          argument against it.

      Q.  Is it your case that the figure due to Mason Works has

          to be reduced by $550,000 because Crispin has said so?

          Yes or no?

      A.  The case is -- yes; am I flexible --

      Q.  Is it your case?  Yes or no?

      A.  The case is -- yes; am I flexible, because I can

          identify --

      COURT:  Nobody asked you whether you are flexible.

 

16:50 A.  No, there's one --

      COURT:  All right, the answer is -- he is not asking you

          about --

      A.  The answer is, that is the basis of the case.

      COURT:  That's it.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Good.  And that basis, that you are

          entitled to $550,000 off, arises from, to use your

          words, the appointment of a common expert by Mason Works

          and Pump Room.  Am I right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  That agreement, to be bound by the findings of a common

          expert, was reached between Pump Room and Mason Works,

          without consulting Poole Associates or Ed Poole; am I

          right?

      A.  That's correct.

      Q.  Poole Associates and Ed Poole are not bound to follow or

          not bound or parties to that agreement; am I right?

      A.  That is not the basis for --

      COURT:  Is it right or wrong?

      A.  It is correct they are not bound by the agreement.

      COURT:  Fine.  Let's move on.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Now, tell me, when were the specifications

          for the brewery vats given to Ed Poole?

      A.  I believe it was in May.

      Q.  When were they given to RSP Architects?

 

16:51 A.  I believe it was in May.

      Q.  Now, as far as the micro-piling was concerned, RSP

          Architects had to tell the contractors exactly where to

          do the micro-piling; am I right?

      A.  You're asking technical questions I can't answer.  I

          would assume so.

      Q.  Do you -- if RSP -- now I'm asking you a hypothetical

          question:  If RSP Architects were late in telling the

          contractor where to do the micro-piling, that would

          delay the start of the piling works.  Am I right?

      A.  That is correct.

      Q.  Now, the -- you told us a few minutes ago that you're

          not holding Poole Associates and Ed Poole responsible

          for the delay in the brewery; you still hold by that?

      A.  I don't think I've ever asked for anything for the delay

          in the brewery.  You remember --

      COURT:  Is that still your position?

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Is that still your position?

      A.  That's -- that's my position.

      Q.  Okay.

      COURT:  Next question.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  However, you are saying Ed Poole ought to

          have told you, "Hey, split the two; go and get TOP for

          the restaurant first."  Am I right?

      A.  That would have been very welcome, yes.

 

16:52 Q.  But you had a condition with Clarke Quay where you must

          have a microbrewery on site; am I right?

      A.  It was a condition of the operation.  I had to have a

          brewery.

      Q.  That's right.  And it must be a real microbrewery; it

          can't be one of those pretend ones.  Am I right?

      A.  It could be a pretend one.

      Q.  It actually had to make beer; am I right?

      A.  It had to make beer --

      Q.  Yes.

      A.  -- but it could be a pretend one.

      Q.  How does a pretend microbrewery make beer -- pretend

          beer?

      A.  A small one.

      Q.  Okay.  Not the alcohol-free one?

      A.  Not the 50-litre one that you are working on at home.

      Q.  Okay.  So Clarke Quay put, as a condition of your

          operations, that you needed a microbrewery; but the

          microbrewery gave problems in terms of structure,

          because of the piling, micro-piling, et cetera?  Am I

          right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  And in the end, Clarke Quay came out with the idea:  Why

          don't you do the two separate?  Am I right?

      A.  Yes.  The lady who runs Clarke Quay is the genius who

 

16:54     found the solution.

      Q.  RSP didn't tell you this; am I right?

      A.  RSP were not asked that question.  RSP were only doing

          the structural work on the -- they were not involved.

      Q.  They were also the project architect; am I right?

              Let's look at Ed Poole's --

      A.  The only structural work was the --

      Q.  No, no --

      A.  -- the brewery.

      Q.  -- let's look at Ed Poole's contract.

      A.  There was no other structural work other than the

          mezzanine and the brewery.

      Q.  Were they also the project architects?

      A.  We hired RSP to work on the brewery --

      Q.  Yes or no?  Were they the project architects?

      A.  My understanding is that they were the architects

          working on the brewery.  I don't think we had any other

          architects.

              So yes, they were the project architects --

      Q.  Okay.

      A.  -- but very specifically for the --

      Q.  So they were the architects.  Were they the ones who did

          the submissions to the relevant authorities?

      A.  To the URA --

      Q.  Yes?

 

16:54 A.  -- for -- yes.

      Q.  And -- let's see.  They did the submission to URA.  They

          were the structural engineers, and they knew about the

          problems that the micro-piling -- or the issues involved

          in the micro-piling.  Am I right?

      A.  When you say "the issues", you mean the structural

          problems?

      Q.  Yes.

      A.  Of course, yes.

      Q.  But they never told you, "Split the applications"; am I

          right?

      A.  They were never involved in the restaurant whatsoever.

          They were unaware of it.  No one ever --

      Q.  Who submitted --

      A.  -- I mean, Mr Poole --

      Q.  -- the restaurant plans to URA?

      A.  Sorry?

      Q.  Who submitted the restaurant plans to URA?

      A.  I would assume it would be RSP.

      Q.  Okay.

      A.  But no one ever asked them to come forward with the

          solution.  They were asked to design structures.

      Q.  No, but they were also asked to submit drawings to URA,

          including drawings of the restaurant.  Am I right?

              We can take those drawings; we can find their chops

 

16:55     on it all over.

      A.  The submission of the drawings to URA, any submissions

          to URA, would have to have gone through RSP, because

          Mr Poole is not able to do that.

      Q.  In fact, one of the problems was the common area between

          Highlander and Pump Room, because that common area was

          needed to get access to the sprinkler control room; am I

          right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  But The Pump Room wanted to -- I'm sorry, The

          Highlander -- wanted to use that common area, because

          it's 15 bucks a square foot, $15 a square foot; am I

          right?

      A.  The common area is actually free.

      Q.  Was it part of your requirements that that common area

          be used for the two -- for the two establishments?

      A.  When you say "requirements" --

      Q.  Was that what you wanted, you and Clark?

      A.  Clark certainly would have liked to incorporate that

          common area into his restaurant.

      Q.  Okay.  And Clark told Ed Poole, "Please incorporate it

          into my restaurant"; am I right?

      A.  There was discussion back and forth as to whether it was

          possible.

      Q.  Hang on.  Hang on.  So Ed Poole tried to convince RSP

 

16:57     that he could do it; am I right?

      A.  Yes, he did.

      Q.  And RSP said, "No way, because you can't incorporate

          that in, because it affects -- it impedes access to the

          sprinkler room"; am I right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  So what Ed Poole was trying to do with RSP was to get

          Clark what he wanted; am I right?

      A.  I would agree with that.

      Q.  But you and your counsel have put that in a bundle of

          documents, saying that this shows that Ed Poole was

          fighting with RSP.

      A.  Ed Poole was unaware of the fact that this was not a

          possibility, and we wasted a lot of time back and forth.

          He refused to accept the advice of a much more

          qualified, apparently, architect.  We should not have

          wasted time.  He should have known.

      Q.  Mr Graham, no skin off Ed Poole's nose, isn't it?

      A.  I would agree with that.  He was trying to look after

          our interests.

      Q.  He was trying to do what Clark wanted?

      A.  Exactly, but it was a waste of time.

      Q.  What your partner wanted?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  And now you blame him for that?

 

16:58 A.  The delay was caused by that argument, and the ill

          feeling between RSP and Mr Poole simply escalated out

          to --

      Q.  Let's go back to your wording, and again I have copied

          down actual words.  You said that you have to put a

          compact microbrewery -- whatever happened, it had to be

          fitted into that space.  Am I right?

      A.  We had -- we had flexibility in the space.  Not a lot.

      Q.  Whatever it is, it had to be fitted in there; am I

          right?

      A.  You take your microbrewery and you design the space

          around it.

      Q.  You design the space around it, but you also have to

          have your restaurant there; am I right?

      A.  The restaurant has to be there, yes.

      Q.  So the size of the microbrewery became a key factor in

          the design; am I right?

      A.  Not of the restaurant.

      Q.  No, of the brewery portion; am I right?

      A.  The size of the microbrewery affects the brewery

          portion; correct.

      Q.  Now, the contract itself, except for your statement,

          "special requirements as previously discussed", has got

          no time lines; am I right?

      A.  That is correct.

 

16:59 Q.  It has got no commitment for the job to be finished on

          time; am I right?

      A.  Mr Poole is --

      Q.  Does it have a commitment for the job to be finished on

          time?  Yes or no?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Okay.  Now, the piling turned out to be a nightmare in

          this case, didn't it?

      A.  The piling was a major delaying factor.

      Q.  And the piling was going on in November; am I right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  When the piling is going on, the brewery is next door to

          the restaurant; am I right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Now, you can't run a restaurant with micro-piling, and

          mud oozing out next door; am I right?

      A.  Incorrect.  The restaurant --

      Q.  No, "incorrect"; I accept your word for it.

      A.  Yeah.

      Q.  Does micro-piling make noise?

      A.  The restaurant is closed between 3 in the morning

          and 12, so given that the entire Clarke Quay was pretty

          empty at the time, there was no problem.

      Q.  If you did micro-piling at night?

      A.  Clarke Quay hadn't opened.  The entire place was a

 

17:00     construction site.  All of it.  There was no problem

          micro-piling.  Now, the restaurant opened --

      Q.  Hang on, hang on.  I want to go back to that.  You say

          the entire place was ...?

      A.  All of Clarke Quay had been redeveloped.

      Q.  Yeah?

      A.  Now, micro-piling, in November, we were still a

          construction site.  There was nothing anywhere in that

          entire building.  And the flexibility for micro-piling

          was pretty well 24 hours a day.

      Q.  Okay.

      A.  Even after the restaurant opened, you could still

          micro-pile from about 4 in the morning till midday.

          There was not a great problem micro-piling.

      Q.  So you couldn't micro-pile while the restaurant was in

          operation; do you agree that much?

      A.  It would be very difficult to micro-pile when the

          restaurant was in operation.

      Q.  It would be impossible, Mr Graham; nobody pays good

          money to have a beer or fish and chips with piling going

          on next door.  Am I right?

      A.  I would not argue with that.

      Q.  Yes.  So now, if the micro-piling went on until

          November, assuming that it could not be done at night,

          it means it would have -- you couldn't have opened the

 

17:01     restaurant; am I right?

      A.  We could not have micro-piled while the restaurant was

          opened.  It would have been difficult.

      Q.  And you would need to micro-pile to get your brewery up

          and going.

      A.  There was no -- the brewery was not essential to open

          the restaurant.  You could buy beer from other people.

      Q.  But the micro-piling --

      A.  So if the micro-piling -- if it took longer, it took

          longer.

      Q.  Yes, but while micro-piling was going on, you can't open

          the restaurant?

      A.  I can micro-pile when the restaurant was closed, which

          is between 3 and 12; nine hours a day.

      Q.  Now, you have taken -- you said the impact of the loss

          of income, you have taken February/March, of 2007 as

          part the income; am I right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Now, February/March 2007, the brewery was open; am I

          right?

      A.  The brewery opened at the end of February.

      Q.  Yes.  So if you look at the income after the brewery was

          opened, it doesn't really tell us what the -- it is --

          to take an economic term, ceteris paribus, all things --

      A.  I don't know what that means.

 

17:02 Q.  Okay.  All things being equal, there would be more

          income when the brewery is in fact open; am I right?

      A.  We had beer.  There was no shortage of beer.  We also

          bought beer from a microbrewery, so it was microbrewery

          beer.  We were perfectly able to --

      Q.  So you are saying the opening of the brewery had no

          impact on revenue?

      A.  I would be incorrect to say that.

      Q.  You would be wrong to say that?

      A.  I would be incorrect to say that, because --

      Q.  You would be wrong.  "I would be incorrect" means "I

          would be wrong to say that"?

      A.  Okay.  The fact is we had all the beer we needed.  We

          got it from another microbrewery --

      Q.  Listen to my question.

      A.  -- it wasn't a problem.

      Q.  Opening of the brewery:  Did it have an impact on

          revenue?

      A.  It is impossible to say, because I had all the beer I

          needed.

      Q.  But we do know that revenue went up after the brewery

          opened; am I right?

      A.  Revenue went up every month, from December, January,

          February, March, April.

      Q.  I'm not saying cause and effect.  "Subsequent to" and

 

17:03     "consequent to" are two different words.  I'm just

          saying subsequent to your brewery opening, revenue went

          up.  Am I right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  And you have repeatedly told us that you don't know what

          was the impact of the brewery not opening, because you

          already had your beer from other sources.  Am I right?

      A.  It is impossible for me to distinguish between the

          impact of having a brewery in operation and not, because

          we had no shortage of beer.

      Q.  That's right.

      A.  The main -- the main advantage we have, to be honest, as

          an operator, is that we have a stupendous nightclub and

          bar.

      Q.  That's right.  Now, so do you agree that in the food and

          beverage and entertainment and pub business, revenue

          starts a bit slow, people get to know about it, more

          people turn up, then you get a bunch of regulars, and

          revenue moves up, until the next new fad comes in; then

          you close down?

      A.  Our revenue has increased almost every month since we

          opened.

      Q.  So when the restaurant opened in December, it was

          expected that it would be a bit of a slow start and that

          it would pick up; am I right?

 

17:05 A.  It always is a slow start, then pick up.  Our advantage

          was that we had the possibility of promoting the brand

          of the band, which gave us a better start than usual.

      Q.  Okay.  And when did the band start?

      A.  The band started the day we opened.

      Q.  Okay.

      A.  They were waiting for us from the 1st of October.

      Q.  Okay.  So if we look at the impact of the delay of two

          months, it would be two months the entire revenue growth

          was set back; that means instead of starting on

          1st October, you start on 6 December, and then the curve

          continues the same; am I right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Now, you described -- and again I'm using your own

          words -- Poole Associates project management as

          catastrophic, which is why you got the assistance -- and

          I'm using your own words now -- of Fred Wong in August?

      A.  The problem was Mr Poole was not there --

      Q.  Hang on.  I haven't asked a question.

      A.  My apologies.

      Q.  Do you still stand by the word "catastrophic"?  Or do

          you want to change that word?

      A.  Well, the impact was catastrophic.

      Q.  Okay.  Now, with this catastrophic impact and the

          appointment of Mr Fred Wong, one would have expected you

 

17:06     to take the position that Mr Poole had caused you

          significant losses, catastrophic losses.  Am I right?

      A.  I believe that's what I'm claiming, yes.

      Q.  Now, my learned friend, Mr Tan, had highlighted when you

          started doing your claims.  Now, you have also said that

          we should cross-examine Mr Wong as to the limited nature

          of his scope.  Do you recall saying that?

      A.  I did, yes.

      Q.  And if Mr Wong admits to being project manager, he would

          be sued next, is it, for catastrophic delay?

      A.  Mr Wong joined us in September --

      Q.  In August, he signed the contract.

      A.  End of August.  So he was functional, basically, in

          September.  And I do not claim there were catastrophic

          delays in September or October.

      Q.  Okay.

      A.  It moved quite quickly after that.  The delay period was

          May through end of August.

      Q.  Now, you have claimed against Mr Ed Poole personally; am

          I right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  As an accountant, you are familiar with the concept of a

          limited liability company; am I right?

      A.  It is a very well-established principle.

      Q.  That's right.  And you know Poole Associates have been

 

17:08     in business for more than 16 years; am I right?

      A.  Absolutely correct.

      Q.  And they have done various projects --

      A.  Many, many projects.

      Q.  -- under the name "Poole Associates"?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  And you have exhibited copies of their other contracts;

          for example, China Jump?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  And Poole Associates came to you very highly recommended

          by Clark; am I right?

      A.  Clark is -- was a very, very big admirer of Mr Poole's

          design abilities.

      Q.  Yes.  And we all know that China Jump, to use the

          terminology that perhaps some of my learned friends may

          use, was one of the happening places in Singapore; am I

          right?

      A.  I actually have never been to China Jump.  I'm too old

          for happening places, to be honest about it.

      Q.  They have got this dentist chair where they --

      A.  I have heard about it.  It terrifies me.

      Q.  Now, you also know that Mr Poole's other locations have

          been happening places; am I right?

      A.  He has had some successes and some failures.

      Q.  Brewerkz is a major success?

 

17:09 A.  Brewerkz is a superb operator.  The design is not

          particularly exciting.  What is exciting is their

          comfort food and beer.  Terrific.

      Q.  Now, you have compared Mr Poole's ID charges with what

          you have paid for your other ventures; am I right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Now, Quayside -- Quayfront Seafood; that's a seafood

          restaurant?

      A.  It's a seafood restaurant, yes.

      Q.  Peony Jade is a Chinese restaurant?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  The Pump Room, on the other hand, is a happening place,

          with a band called "Jive Talking"; am I right?

      A.  This is correct.

      Q.  It has got a wall -- 30-metre -- 30-feet wall with

          mirrors; am I right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  It's a nightclub kind of pub; am I right?

      A.  It's a nightclub/restaurant combined.

      Q.  So the type of ID work and the talent required to create

          a happening night spot, it's a fair bit different from

          what you need for a restaurant; am I right?

      A.  Which is why I agreed to $68,000.

      Q.  That's right.  $68,000 worth of high-end, happening

          night club interior design; am I right?

 

17:10 A.  It's 6,000 -- sorry, the interior is 5,500 square feet,

          which is quite small.

      Q.  I'm putting it to you that Mr Ed Poole was not hired as

          a project manager; that Mr Ed Poole was hired as an

          interior designer -- or to use a technical term, full

          interior architecture -- and no more.  Do you agree?

      A.  I disagree.

      Q.  And in fact, if there was any problems that arose out of

          project management in structure and M&E works, you

          should look to your M&E structural consultants.  Do you

          agree?

      A.  I disagree.

      Q.  Now, when your two previous contractors sued you, or

          sued the Quayfront -- Quayside Dining, you came out with

          a counterclaim as well; am I right?

      A.  The one I remember is the mosaic tiling --

      Q.  How much was your counterclaim?

      A.  Fifteen, twenty thousand dollars.  Quite small.

      Q.  Now, you said Highlander, under $100 per square foot?

      A.  It's a figure I -- I calculated.

      Q.  Yeah.  It's extremely cheap; am I right?  Extremely

          cheap?

              Did Highlander require structural works?

      A.  We're talking per square foot?

      Q.  Yeah.  Did it require structural works?

 

17:11 A.  Highlander did not require structural works.

      Q.  Did it require micro-piling?

      A.  It did not.

      Q.  Now, this particular Pump Room, the total bill is

          about 1.2 million; am I right?

      A.  Oh, rubbish.  2.8 million.  For only Mason Works --

      Q.  For construction?  For construction?

      A.  2.8 million, total investment.

      Q.  No, construction works, Mr Graham.

      A.  Oh, this is only Mason Works.  All the other bills, the

          micro-piling, everything --

      Q.  The micro-piling is 147,000.

      A.  Yes.

              Many, many other items.  The total investment in The

          Pump Room was $2.8 million.

      Q.  How much for construction?

      A.  I would have to go in and add it up.  I would guess

          about -- 1.5.

      Q.  1.5.  Okay, let's take 1.5 for construction.  And

          Highlander is about --

      A.  Including the brewery there, or not?

      Q.  Including the brewery.

      A.  The brewery -- Mason Works is about 1.2, 1.3.

      Q.  Yep.

      A.  Then you've got --

 

17:12 Q.  Piling is 147,000?

      A.  Brewery would be roughly 600K.

      Q.  That's the brewing equipment and all that?

      A.  That's what I'm talking about.

      Q.  Now, if we take construction, how much per square foot

          does it come out to?

      A.  If you're taking construction, you must take the brewery

          out.  It is not a construction.

      Q.  So how much per square foot does it come out to?

      A.  The figure that was calculated, by whoever, was $183.

      Q.  Okay.  So Highlander is $100 per square foot, your

          words, extremely cheap; am I right?

      A.  Let me get it clear --

      Q.  Do you agree Highlander, at $100 a square foot, was

          extremely cheap?

      A.  The 183 applies only to the restaurant; nothing else.

          It is 800-and-something thousand, divided by

          5,500 square feet.  It works out roughly -- what's that

          -- eight and a half thousand divided by five thousand --

      Q.  Do you agree that the cost of piling and structural

          works to --

      A.  The cost of --

      Q.  I haven't finished.  I will finish; then you can answer.

              The cost of piling and structural works for the

          brewery is quite unique, in that you can't compare

 

17:14     construction of a brewery with the fitting-out of a

          night spot; do you agree?

      A.  You cannot compare it, and I'm not doing that.

      Q.  Okay.  Good.  Do you agree that insofar as your cost

          overruns of your brewery is concerned, it arose from the

          type of brewing equipment used?

      A.  There is only one type of brewing equipment that you --

      Q.  The type that you have used here?  Do you agree that

          that is one of the factors?

      A.  One of the factors in the high cost --

      COURT:  Do you agree that that is one of the factors?

      MR SREENIVASAN:    The cost of the brewery.

      A.  I'm trying to recall the question, your Honour.  I

          apologise.

      Q.  Okay, then ask me; I'll repeat the question.

      A.  Would you repeat the question?

      Q.  I would.

              Mr Graham, do you agree that the type of brewery

          used is one of the factors -- brewing equipment used is

          one of the factors?

      A.  In -- in what?

      Q.  In the cost of the brewery.

      A.  Yes, the brewery cost.

      Q.  Okay.  Do you agree that the type of structure that is

          needed for the brewery is one of the factors?

 

17:15 A.  I agree.

      Q.  Do you agree that the soil condition is one of the

          factors?

      A.  I agree.

      Q.  Do you agree that Mr Poole, or his company, didn't have

          anything to do with the soil condition?

      A.  I agree.

      Q.  Do you agree that they didn't have anything to do with

          the required structure?

      A.  I agree.

      Q.  Do you agree that they didn't have anything to do with

          the choice of the brewing equipment?

      A.  I agree.

      Q.  So we are down to the $183 per square foot for the

          restaurant; am I right?

      A.  No.  No.  Because Mr Poole assured me that Mason Works'

          prices were fair and reasonable.  He assured me

          repeatedly --

      COURT:  That's not the point.

      A.  And therefore my --

      COURT:  Are we down to $183 --

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Per square foot for the restaurant?

      COURT:  That's the question.  Are you down to that?  Is that

          calculation correct?

      A.  The restaurant was 183 --

 

17:16 MR SREENIVASAN:  Yes.

      A.  I would have to go through the calculation again, your

          Honour.

      Q.  Okay.  Never mind.

      A.  Just to make sure exactly what is in there.  It's a very

          large --

      Q.  Okay.  I'll rephrase my question.

      A.  -- a very large project, and without going into various

          sections, I'd have to do some calculation --

      Q.  Let me rephrase my question.  We now have to decide

          whether Mason Works' $183 per square foot was fair and

          reasonable; am I right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  And if that's fair and reasonable, Poole Associates and

          Ed Poole are off the hook for your $550,000 claim.  Am I

          right?

      A.  That's a generality.  I would say that has to be

          examined.

      Q.  Okay.

              Just one last short area.  Your Honour, if I can

          push through, I would rather finish today.

      COURT:  How long will it take?

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Not more than five minutes, your Honour.

      COURT:  Please proceed.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Yes.

 

17:17         Can I go to Chris Shelley's affidavit.  And can we

          go to page 117 of his affidavit.

              Sorry, not 117.

      A.  I'm lost.

      Q.  If you can go to Chris Shelley's affidavit and turn to

          page 7.  Sorry.

              Have you got it?  It's a project table.

      A.  Page 7?

      Q.  Yeah.

      A.  I'm struggling.

      Q.  Have you got it?  It's the first exhibit.

      A.  Yes, I have it.

      Q.  Thank you.  And this is the time lines that was being

          done on -- if you look at the bottom left corner,

          13 July 2006.  Am I right?

      A.  That's what it says.

      Q.  To hit the opening on 2nd October 2006.  Am I right?