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 4

 

Tuesday, 4 November 2008

(10.55 am)

MR VIJAY:  May it please your Honour.  Your Honour, my

    client the plaintiff wishes to discontinue the action

    against the 3rd defendant, i.e. Ed Poole, in his

    personal capacity, and the cost to be either agreed or

    to be taxed.

COURT:  All right, leave is granted for that.

MR VIJAY:  I'm obliged, your Honour.

MR TAN:  Your Honour, given these developments, I have taken

    instructions from clients this morning, the 1st

    defendants, and we will be instructing Mr Sreenivasan to

    carry out the cross-examination of certain witnesses in

    these proceedings.

MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, as a matter of clarification, is

    Mr Sreenivasan being instructed or is he assisting

    Eugene?  It may become relevant later.

MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, a rose by any name sounds just

    as bad, if I may mix my metaphors.  I think I will be

    assisting Mr Tan in terms of the cross-examination of

    certain witnesses.

MR VIJAY:  Okay, in which case it will be a domestic matter.

MR SREENIVASAN:  Yes, entirely domestic.

COURT:  That aside --

MR VIJAY:  Thank you, your Honour.

COURT:  All right.  Mr Ong.

             WILLIAM GRAHAM (previously sworn)

                Cross-examination by MR ONG

MR ONG:  May it please your Honour.

        Good morning, Mr Graham.

A.  Good morning counsel.

Q.  I am counsel for the 2nd defendants, Mason Works.  I'm

    trying to put my case to you as soon as I can, as fast

    as I can.  However, it will help a lot if you allow me

    to establish a few general truths, non-contentious, as

    far as this case is concerned, and my assurance will be

    that when it comes to the areas where it is contentious,

    I will give you due warning.  Is that fine with you?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Mr Graham, you are an accountant by training, is that

    right?

A.  I'm a cost accountant by training.  I ceased actively

    acting as a cost accountant some 20 years ago.

Q.  You are also a company director for a number of years;

    am I right?

A.  Correct.

Q.  So is it fair to say you are not an ignoramus on these

    matters of companies and accounting?

A.  I don't think anyone ever said that.  I think my

    abilities in the area of construction were very much

    highlighted as being minimal.

Q.  So would you agree, "yes" or "no", that your duties as

    a director of the plaintiff is to safeguard and account

    for the company's money; one of your duties?

A.  Those are the fundamental duties of directors, I would

    not argue with that.

Q.  So that is a yes?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And one of the ways to safeguard and account for money

    is to carefully monitor the payment of money by the

    company's cheques; am I correct?

A.  That is correct.

Q.  Now, specifically, when you are asked to sign a cheque,

    you would make sure that the correct amount is being

    paid; am I right?

A.  That's advisable, correct.

Q.  And you would also make sure that the correct amount

    being paid is for items which the company has contracted

    for; am I right?

A.  The cheques that I sign are given to me by the company

    accountants.  The company accountants are essentially

    giving me something which they say they have reviewed

    and approved.  I assume that that is the case and

    insofar as I am able to check I will check further.

Q.  So you are relying on these accountants to advise you

    that the company is paying for what it's liable to pay?

A.  That is what the company accountants do.

Q.  Right.  All that I have said so far also applies to your

    own money or related parties' monies if you are paying

    these monies on behalf of the company; am I correct?

A.  That seems reasonable, yes.

Q.  As I promised, Mr Graham, I will now, then, move to the

    areas where you want to be more careful with me; all

    right?

        I want to examine with you the cheques that were

    paid out for these projects carried out by my client.

        May I refer to the 2nd defendant's bundle of

    documents, volume 2, starting with page 413?

A.  I see it.

Q.  Yes, do you see that?

A.  Yes, I do.

Q.  Correct me if I am wrong; this is a cheque for 13,590

    dollars, payable to my clients on your joint account

    with Mrs Graham, and am I correct that that's her

    signature?

A.  Correct.

Q.  You told us yesterday your wife is a Hainanese; am

    I correct?

A.  I believe so.

Q.  Are you aware that the Hainanese do have a reputation

    among the Chinese for being extremely careful with

    money?

A.  I'm advised they are extremely good at food.  The money

    aspect I had not heard.  She is very prudent.

Q.  She's very prudent; that's good.  You know the Bible

    does say that he who finds a wife finds a good thing.

        So this cheque was in fact paid to my clients, Mason

    Works, as the 30 per cent deposit payment for the

    demolition work, am I correct, on the common demolition?

A.  I don't know.

Q.  Okay, let me help you.  Could you turn to page 182 of

    the 2nd defendant's bundle of affidavits of

    evidence-in-chief?  It is a thick volume.  Are you

    there?

A.  45,000 dollars.

Q.  Yes.  This is for the demolition works of The Pump Room

    at block B, Clarke Quay, quotation number 1576/06.  This

    is first the contract document.  It's been signed by The

    Pump Room; am I correct?

A.  Yes, it has.

Q.  Do you see the part "terms of payment", under which

    there is 30 per cent deposit upon confirmation?

A.  I do.

Q.  Could you turn two pages down to page 184?

A.  I'm there.

Q.  There you see the amount of 12,942.86, being the deposit

    for this demolition work?

A.  I see that, but --

Q.  That includes GST?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So that's exactly 13,590; am I correct?

A.  You are.

Q.  So that must be what you paid for, am I correct?

A.  Well, it's to Mason Works and it's the exact number and

    the date looks -- I'm trying to read it.  My wife's

    writing is appalling.  Is that 21st or 27th?

Q.  27th?

A.  The date on the invoice is the 27th.  It looks like the

    21st, nevertheless let's assume it was the 27th.  That

    would be appropriate.

Q.  So it must be payment for this sum, isn't it?

A.  My only question is the date.  It looks as though it is

    60 in advance.

Q.  Take your time.  I just want a yes-or-no answer.

A.  I don't know.  The date on the cheque looks a little

    different, and the invoice, if it was sent, it seems

    unlikely the cheque would be raised the same minute.

    But yes, let's assume it is.

Q.  Thank you.  Now let's look at the next cheque at page

    414 of this same bundle.

        This is a cheque dated 11 September 2006, paid from

    a Manwin Consulting Pte Ltd.  Is it related to The Pump

    Room?

A.  When The Pump Room started it took an off-the-shelf

    company called Manwin and then changed the name.

Q.  So you are also paying on behalf of The Pump Room to my

    clients; right?

A.  Yes, right.

Q.  And you signed this cheque with Mr George Clark Martin;

    am I right?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Can you turn to page 202 of the 2nd defendant's bundle

    of affidavits of evidence-in-chief?

A.  I am there.

Q.  So you see here a quotation for the proposed interior

    fitting out works and M&E works for The Pump Room.  The

    quotation is priced at 474,770.59; am I right?

A.  Correct.

Q.  As with the earlier terms of payment there is a 40 per

    cent deposit upon confirmation and it's been signed by

    you; is that right?

A.  That's correct.

Q.  If you turn to page 227, that's the invoice dated

    11 September 2006?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So that's the same date as this cheque that you have

    signed; right?

A.  Correct.

Q.  And the amount payable on the deposit is in fact

    189,908.24; am I right?

A.  Sorry, let me go through this again.

Q.  Come again?

A.  Could you just take me through that again.

Q.  227.

A.  Right.

Q.  So the 40 per cent deposit amount was in fact 189,908.24

    dollars.  The invoice was dated 11 September?

A.  I see that.

Q.  If you look at the "paid" chop on the top right-hand

    corner of this invoice --

A.  Yes.

Q.  -- you will see that they mention a 11 September 2006

    cheque drawn on DBS Bank, cheque number 000076?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Then there is a second cheque later, dated 20 October

    2006, also drawn on DBS but the cheque number now is

    000119; am I right?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So this cheque at page 414 of that slim bundle of

    cheques, you know, that you have seen, that corresponds

    with the top DBS 00076 cheque; right?

A.  I'm looking for --

Q.  The cheque number --

A.  What's the amount on that cheque?

Q.  150,000 and then the second cheque, which is actually

    part of page 415 later on, I will account to you that

    there is -- if you have your calculator ready -- later

    on I will show you that that second cheque actually had

    a component of 39,908.24 to make up the entire

    40 per cent deposit?

A.  Mm-hmm.

Q.  So for the moment all I want to establish is that your

    00076 cheque was paid pursuant to this tax invoice;

    would I be correct?

A.  So the 0007 cheque, which is for $150,000 is (unclear --

    simultaneous speakers).

Q.  Is for the deposit.

A.  This invoice.

Q.  Right.  And almost a month later, my clients allowed you

    to defer the payment of the balance, 39,998.24.  That's

    really what it is, isn't it?

A.  If I may explain --

Q.  Just answer "yes" or "no" before you explain, if you

    don't mind.

A.  Well, I have not done the calculation.  I assume it's

    correct.

Q.  You assume it's correct.  I will take you through the

    next cheque.  Let's turn to page 415.

A.  Page 415.

Q.  415 of the slim bundle of the cheques.  That's the

    second cheque that was dated 18 October 2006?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Mr Graham, I'm really fortunate that my client is an

    accountant, so he is able to apportion the cheque

    payments for me.

        Now, he has set out very nicely in a table at page

    157 of the 2nd defendant's bundle of affidavits of

    evidence-in-chief as to the breakdown -- sorry, it's the

    bundle of affidavits of evidence-in-chief.

        Does your Honour have it?  It is a spreadsheet.

COURT:  You carry on.

MR TAN:  Mr Graham, if you see an invoice number on the

    left-hand column called invoice number 1678, the second

    line, you will see a figure of 33,975 dollars; would

    that be right?

A.  I see it.

Q.  Do you have a calculator with you?

A.  No, I do not.  I'm sure I can get one.

Q.  Now, the 33,975 dollars has been described as "Full

    payment for the balance of the demolition works on the

    brick walls for The Pump Room"; do you see that?

A.  Which invoice is this?

Q.  Q1678, the second line.

A.  Okay.

Q.  Could you --

A.  "Demolition works and new brick walls for the pump room

    (full)."  Yes, I see that.

Q.  So it's invoice 1678, being full payment for the

    demolition works at The Pump Room.  So you add the

    figure of 33,975.

A.  Sorry, you want me to take 33 --

Q.  Take 33,975.

A.  Okay.

Q.  Now, could you look further down to invoice 1707?  It's

    the third paragraph, I think, the first line.

A.  I see it.

Q.  Do you see it?

A.  Yes.

Q.  That's for "demolition of existing party wall and

    erection of new cold room wall deposit".  Do you see

    a sum of 16,732.80?

A.  I see it.

Q.  Okay, could you add that to your earlier figure of

    33,975?

A.  That is done.

Q.  Right.  Could you go to invoice 1708; that's the second

    paragraph, second line.  The words are "Interior fitting

    out and M&E work for The Pump Room project, 65

    per cent."

        That must be a progressive payment.

A.  I see it, yes.

Q.  Now, the sum is 118,692.65 dollars.

A.  Do you wish me to add that?

Q.  Yes, do add it in.  Could you now look in this same

    spreadsheet for invoice 1709?

A.  I see it.

Q.  In the fourth paragraph, the first line, it's for

    "interior fitting out and M&E works to The Pump Room",

    VO1 to VO5, deposit.  And the sum is 102,906.41?

A.  Okay.

Q.  Mr Graham, you will recall in the last cheque that the

    deposit for the earlier fitting out works, you were

    actually short by 39,908.24 dollars; do you remember?

A.  I do not remember, but I will accept your word for it.

Q.  Now, just remember the numbers carefully.  You add

    39,908.24?

A.  You want me to add 39,908?

Q.  Yes.  What is your total figure?

A.  312,215.

Q.  Ah, voila.  That's what your cheque for page 415 is

    about; am I right?

A.  I have no idea.

Q.  The figures agree, don't they?

A.  What am I supposed to be comparing it with?  The cheque?

Q.  The cheque, page 415, do the figures agree?

A.  Yes, that's -- and the ten is there as well.

Q.  So you must have paid this cheque for all those items

    I have just listed out?

A.  It looks that that cheque is for those but, you know,

    I would have to go back and do a much more detailed

    calculation.  But the coincidence is too great, I would

    agree.

Q.  Would you say more likely than not that was what you

    paid the cheque for, bearing in mind you were the

    company's safe-keeper of the money?

A.  I would say that we paid invoices presented to us by

    Mason Works, which the accountant checked, and I assume

    she found them to be correct, but it's based entirely on

    Mason Works's invoices, which I assume to be correct,

    but we should obviously check.

Q.  So you did check?

A.  I personally did not do this check.

Q.  Well, I have checked it with you.  Do you find anything

    fishy with my ...?

A.  You asked me did I check each of these; I signed some of

    the cheques, not all of them.

Q.  Mr Graham, you have an accountant's training.  I don't

    even have the benefit of Mr Sreenivasan's A for basic

    accounting.  Why don't I do this: you take your time and

    ask yourself what this 312,215.10 dollars cheque was.

    It is a very exact figure, isn't it?  And 10 cents --

A.  The -- (unclear -- simultaneous speakers) -- by Mason

    Works, that were reviewed by the accounts department.

    The accounts department clearly thought they were

    appropriate.  They passed them to me for signature and

    my wife signed or I signed or Clark Martin signed.

Q.  In this case you signed it; Mr Martin --

A.  I'm glad you pointed that out.  We will go back and

    investigate that.  I appreciate that.

Q.  So you concede that.

        Okay.  Go to page 416, please, Mr Graham.

A.  417 of the same document.

Q.  This slim volume of cheques.  Do you see it?

A.  I see it.

Q.  Now, this is a cheque drawn on The Pump Room Pte Ltd,

    27 October 2006.

A.  Sorry, what page is this?

Q.  Page 416.  We have finished 415.

A.  Yes, I see where we are.

Q.  So it's a cheque to Mason Works for 25,099.20 dollars.

    Again a very unique figure --

A.  Yes.

Q.  Shall I guide you to where I think the payment was for?

A.  It says here "invoice 1722".

Q.  You see that.  Now, invoice 1722, going back to the page

    157, the spreadsheet, 1722 is for "demolition of

    existing party wall and erection of new cold room

    (full)."

A.  That's what it says here.

Q.  So this 25,099.20 is full payment for the demolition

    works carried out a second time for the brewery to

    prepare the new cold room wall?

A.  This was an invoice prepared by Mason Works and sent to

    us which we paid in full.

Q.  Yes.  You see, the deposit for that has been paid

    earlier on at invoice 1707.  The deposit sum was

    16,732.80 and if you added that to the 25,099.20 the

    full sum for that demolition work was 41,832.  Am

    I correct?

A.  It's shown there, yes.  Those two numbers add up to that

    figure.

Q.  So let's recap.  At this point in time you had fully

    paid for the original demolition to receive the fitting

    out works and now you have made full payment for the

    second phase of demolition where you are getting to

    receive the brewery; am I correct?

A.  That's correct.

Q.  So let's go to the next cheque at page 417.

        For this sum, Mr Graham, could you look at invoice

    number 1738, the second paragraph, third line from the

    top; do you see it?

A.  Yes, I see that.

Q.  It says it's "Interior fitting out and M&E works for The

    Pump Room, 85 per cent"; presumably 85 per cent

    progressive payment stage.

A.  That's what it says.

Q.  So 94,956.11.  Could you key that number in your

    calculator, please?

A.  94 ...?

Q.  94,954.11.

A.  Sorry, that was not working.

Q.  94,954.11.

        Now, could you go further down the page and look for

    invoice 1737?  Do you see the sixth paragraph,

    I believe, the first line, 1737?

A.  I have it.

Q.  It says, "Construction of brewhouse and cold room

    structural work."

A.  Okay.

Q.  And the sum is 30 per cent deposit, 83,820.62.  Could

    you add that to the 94,954.11?

A.  That is done.

Q.  And do you get 178,774.73?

A.  I do.

Q.  Right.  Just a further confirmation, Mr Graham.  Could

    you turn to page 94 of the defendant's bundle of

    documents -- the documents, not the affidavits.  This is

    a thick blue bundle that looks like this.  It has lots

    of drawings.  Not in the affidavit; a bundle of

    documents.

A.  This is missing -- and I'm not saying it is but I am not

    finding it.

Q.  It's been admitted.  Page 94, this is the particular

    invoice being referred to.  Do you see invoice number

    I1737?

A.  I do.  This is the one here.

Q.  So you see the total amount, 83,820.62?

A.  Yes, I see it.

Q.  So this is the 30 per cent deposit claim for the

    construction of brewhouse and cold room at Clarke Quay,

    isn't it, for The Pump Room?

A.  Yes.  And that 30 per cent -- I can clear this number

    now?

Q.  Sure.

A.  So take that 30 per cent; that would be --

COURT:  What is the point that you are trying to make?  That

    they paid you?

A.  Well, they paid, having gone through their own

    verification that this was what they contracted for and

    these are for the works that they have received.

MR VIJAY:  I don't think that is in dispute, actually, your

    Honour.

COURT:  Yes, they are not disputing it, so do you need to go

    through this matter?

MR ONG:  So can you confirm, Mr Graham?

A.  I'm struggling to follow all these things.

COURT:  What is your position?  You confirm?

MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, my client's position is whatever was

    invoiced was paid, except for the undisputed amount

    that's not paid.  But if you ask the client for the

    details now, so many people and so many times -- I mean,

    all along there is no dispute.

COURT:  That's what I'm asking you, Mr Ong, is that what you

    want to say, they paid?

A.  If you are asking did I sign all cheques, the answer is

    no, I did not sign all cheques.  If you are asking me

    did I approve everything; no, I did not.

COURT:  It's not that.  The clients are not denying --

MR VIJAY:  Overall, whatever was invoiced was paid; that's

    not in dispute.

A.  I mean, the fact is, the invoicing and the sequencing

    was very, very complicated and, frankly, the reason we

    got Mr Wong to help us was to try to work out what

    should and should not be paid.

COURT:  But the point is -- I'm saying you don't have to go

    through all this, because they accept that they paid.

    Whether it's complicated sequencing, the fact remains

    that they paid.  I think you should move on.

MR ONG:  I am obliged, your Honour.  I will quickly move on.

        Mr Graham, I will quickly just let you look through

    page 417, the rest of the cheques, page 418, 419, 420 --

COURT:  But they are not disputing that they paid whatever

    cheques, so why does he need to look at all this?

MR ONG:  I am just confirming with Mr Graham that he signed

    all of these.

COURT:  There's no denial that if the signature is there,

    it's signed.  Isn't it correct, Mr Vijay?

A.  I hope you are telling me I have overpaid, because I

    would like some money back.  If I haven't overpaid, can

    you stop now.

MR ONG:  Well, it's precisely because you said that you

    overpaid that I want to make sure that you have gone

    through the process.

COURT:  Well, we assume that they have gone through the

    process.  I don't want to hear that people have found no

    claim for a refund.

MR ONG:  So Mr Graham, if you could look through all the

    rest of the cheques up to page 422 --

A.  To be honest, you credit my brain with an ability way

    beyond what it can do.  I cannot look at all these

    things and make sense of them (unclear -- simultaneous

    speakers).

MR ONG:  I understand.  His Honour has already stopped me.

    All I need you to do is look at the rest of the cheques

    and confirm that you have signed them.

A.  I did not sign all of the cheques; I signed most of

    them.

Q.  You signed every single one of them.

A.  May I refer you to the first cheque (unclear --

    simultaneous speakers).

COURT:  Where your signature appears, you have signed them?

A.  Absolutely, your Honour, where my signature appears

    I have signed them.

Q.  So actually nine of these cheques were signed by you.

    The first was signed by your wife.

A.  Correct, because at the time we only had two or three

    signatories, so almost everything I would sign.

Q.  Mr Graham, I will just move to put my case to you.

        Just tell me if you agree or disagree.  As

    a director of the company with accountant's training,

    you were safeguarding and accounting for the money when

    you signed these cheques.  Agree or disagree?

A.  We had a system in place for cheque preparation and

    review.

Q.  Yes, an internal control process.

A.  Fred Wong was assisting us to review and was confirming

    that the cheques had to be paid.  He was advising my

    wife more than myself, and when the invoices were there

    and Mr Wong looked through them to make sure, as far as

    he was concerned they were okay, then we would assume

    that they were okay and we would sign them.

Q.  So when you signed the cheques you assumed the internal

    review was carried out?

A.  An assumed that the cheques were correct --

Q.  Were proper and in order, right?  Yes, okay.

        Now, is it your case that by 8 November 2006, when

    you received what you called an exorbitant quote for the

    construction of the brewhouse at $279,402.06 for the

    brewhouse constructions, you were extremely suspicious

    of my clients?

A.  The trouble with that title is it suggests that it is

    a brewhouse.  In fact, what that is is a floor and

    a mezzanine structure.

COURT:  Can you please answer "yes" or "no"; were you

    extremely suspicious?

A.  I was uncomfortable, your Honour.  I was very

    uncomfortable.

COURT:  Fine.  Then you say you were uncomfortable and we

    will move on.

MR ONG:  Mr Graham, I'm sorry, but I will have to refer you

    to your own pleaded case when my clients claim for the

    money.

        Can I refer you to --

COURT:  Can you just state it.  If the lawyer does not

    object, we will move on.  What is it?

MR ONG:  He has pleaded that he became extremely suspicious

    when he received this exorbitant quote.

COURT:  Will you take his word for it?

A.  I will take his word.

COURT:  If he will take your word, let's move on.  We have

    many witnesses to cover.

MR ONG:  So you were extremely suspicious, that's my point,

    on receiving a 279,000 quote.

A.  I thought that was very large.

Q.  And at that point of time, it's your testimony that the

    shareholders were unhappy because they had to pay up

    more money, and, if they didn't pay money for the

    construction, their shares were diluted -- am I correct?

A.  I did not say the shareholders were unhappy.  I said the

    shareholders would be unhappy if the costs kept

    escalating at this rate because we were --

Q.  Okay, Mr Graham, let me use your exact words.

A.  Thank you.

Q.  Paragraph 79 of your affidavit of evidence-in-chief.

A.  I do recall that myself and my wife and quite a few

    other members of the family are shareholders.  Certainly

    some shareholders were unhappy, not all shareholders

    were even informed, so I can't say that all shareholders

    were unhappy.

Q.  Mr Graham, let's stick to your exact words.

        Can you turn to page 30 of your affidavit of

    evidence-in-chief, paragraph 79.

A.  I am there.

Q.  I will read it for you.  These are your words:

        "I then indicated that I would have great difficulty

    convincing the many other shareholders of The Pump Room

    of that fact, given that all our early estimations were

    being blown apart."

A.  Yes, "I would have", not, "I do have".

Q.  Let's just read it.  I'm just sticking to your words

    like glue, Mr Graham:

        "The directors were particularly open to criticism

    by shareholders as the entire process of tendering as

    practised by Ed Poole was deeply flawed and left us

    incapable of judging the quotations.  There was only one

    quotation given for the work at any one time.  We relied

    entirely on the assurances given by William Lee that

    there was no overcharging and by Ed Poole's supportive

    comments that the prices were correct and that Mason

    Works was the cheapest around" -- so it's them saying

    cheapest around, not us:

        "I therefore stated that I had no other choice but

    to seek some independent advice to confirm that the

    prices were normal and fair."

        Now the next page:

        "As we had to call in more funds, shareholders

    unable to contribute were being heavily diluted in the

    percentage of the company they own.  I needed to

    reassure them that this was unavoidable."

        So isn't it a fair characterisation to say that on

    8 November, this was the situation facing your company,

    on top of your being extremely suspicious?

A.  You used the phrase "were", which said that they already

    were expressing, which was not actually the case, other

    than myself and my wife.  I was referring to the future,

    as these sums became due, as we had to put more --

Q.  "Yes" or "no", Mr Graham?  Were you suspicious and open

    to criticism by shareholders?

A.  I was certainly suspicious at the time and I was

    certainly open to criticism in the future, if I did not

    properly assess whether these were the right prices or

    not.

Q.  So is it your case that, during this one hour long

    meeting with Mr William Lee, you got him to agree to

    a price review by Crispin?

A.  We agreed to a price review by Crispin.

Q.  "Yes" or "no"?

A.  I stand by what I've just said.  If you say I "got" him

    to do it, it suggests I coerced him and he did not

    agree.  He did agree and yes, I --

Q.  Mr Graham, you are putting words in my mouth.

A.  Yes, he agreed.

Q.  And this is the first time an external independent

    review had been agreed to; am I correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So is it your evidence that, after this major concession

    from my clients and despite your suspicions, you didn't

    get Crispin to start reviewing the prices -- is that

    your evidence?

A.  My evidence is --

Q.  "Yes" or "no"?

A.  I got Crispin to start reviewing at the end of the

    contract as agreed.

Q.  I am talking about 8 November 2006.

A.  I did not get Crispin to start reviewing immediately.

Q.  Right.  Even though you were extremely suspicious and

    it's the first time you got this concession from my

    clients, but you didn't review yet?

A.  What I explained to Mr Lee at the time was the problem

    I had was with the entire process of being given

    quotations with absolutely no way of knowing whether

    they were good, bad or indifferent quotations.

Q.  "Yes" or "no", Mr Graham?

A.  I am trying to give an answer.

Q.  No, my question is "yes" or "no", did you get Mr Crispin

    to review on 8 November 2006?

MR VIJAY:  I believe the witness has already answered no and

    he is now explaining.  He must be given a chance to

    explain.  He said no.

A.  I said no, and the reason is that the discussion was

    about the entire process of reviewing and, if you like,

    evaluating the quotations that kept coming through.

        At no point did I ever have any basis for evaluating

    these other than the variable assurances of the project

    manager Mr Poole and the contractor Mr Lee.  I felt

    quite helpless.  The numbers had arrived at very, very

    large levels and I needed some kind of explanation that

    I could give which said that "These are fair, these are

    reasonable, these are market level", and therefore

    I proposed that we have at the end of the project an

    assessment by an expert to confirm the prices were

    market level and reasonable.  Because I only knew one

    expert, I proposed Crispin.  Fortunately he was also

    known to Mr Lee, and we agreed, yes, let's use Crispin

    to do the evaluation at the end of the project.

Q.  Mr Graham, if you want to go to a soap box, please go to

    Hong Lim Park.  Your evidence before the court is just

    "yes" or "no", did you start it?

MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, I think that's really uncalled for.

    He is explaining.  He may not like the detail, but he is

    explaining.  "Soap box", I mean --

COURT:  Let's move on.

MR ONG:  Shall we move on, Mr Graham?

A.  Please.

Q.  Isn't it true that at this time Mr Fred Wong had also

    left The Pump Room?

A.  Mr Fred Wong left basically, as I recall --

Q.  End of October.

A.  At the end of October, but --

Q.  Mr Graham, if he left end of October he can't be at The

    Pump Room on 8 November.  It stands to reason, doesn't

    it?

A.  He was not at The Pump Room on 8 November.

Q.  Right.  That's all I want.

A.  That was not the question you asked me.  You asked if he

    left at the end of October.  Yes, he did, but he

    frequently came back to assist.

Q.  I did not ask you to tell me why he was gone; I was

    asking you whether he was gone.

A.  Well, since his name kept popping up afterwards

    I thought you might be interested in knowing why.

Q.  No, you are getting ahead of me, Mr Graham, that's my

    problem.

COURT:  Let's move on.

MR ONG:  So you were extremely suspicious, Fred Wong has

    left, you got my client's concession and yet you did not

    consider a price review; am I right "yes" or "no"?

A.  I thought we had just agreed on a price review.

Q.  Right, but you didn't do the review then.

A.  Because there's no point reviewing a bit; I wanted to

    review the entire amount, because the process from day 1

    was wrong.

Q.  My question is, did you or did you not.  In spite of

    your suspicions, in spite of Fred Wong's absence, in

    spite of securing this concession from my clients, you

    did not start the review?

A.  I did not want a piecemeal review in the middle of the

    project.  We are trying to open in the next three weeks.

    The last thing I need is someone ricocheting around

    doing reviews.  If I'm doing -- somebody in for review

    it will stop the work.

Q.  I repeat my question: you did not start the review,

    despite your suspicions, despite Fred Wong's absence,

    despite the concession that you just got from my

    clients.

COURT:  No, really.

MR ONG:  No.

        Now, here's the problem, Mr Crispin.

A.  I am Mr Graham.

Q.  I'm so sorry.  I think it was about this time that

    I lost it.

A.  We are all getting a bit tired.

Q.  I'm really sorry, Mr Graham, I do apologise.

        Now, my problem, Mr Graham, is that on 8 November

    2006 you considered 279,000, thereabouts, exorbitant?

A.  For a floor.

Q.  And you were extremely suspicious?

A.  I was very uncomfortable.

Q.  And Fred Wong has left.

COURT:  What's your question?

MR ONG:  The problem, Mr Graham, is that if I added up all

    your cheques paid after 8 November, I arrive at the

    grand total of 489,000, thereabouts, to my clients.

A.  I don't get your point.

Q.  498,000, paid after you were extremely suspicious, is

    more than -- 210,000 more than your exorbitant sum?

A.  The money was due.  During the discussions

    I specifically said, "We keep on paying in line with the

    appropriate amount".  I was not withholding payment.

    I was perhaps withholding the retention or whatever you

    call it, but there was absolutely -- I assured Mr Lee

    that we would be paying as required by the quotations we

    were signing.  And we paid rigorously until we

    discovered, through Mr Crispin's intervention, that

    there was a very substantial overcharge.

        I had no intention at all of not paying on time and

    I continued to pay very substantial sums of money on

    time, even to Mr Poole.  We are not bad paymasters.  We

    pay our bills.

Q.  I never said you were bad paymasters.  My even bigger

    problem, Mr Graham, was that, even after you had engaged

    Mr Crispin on 6 February, three days after his

    engagement you went ahead and paid a further 6,222.30

    dollars to my clients.

A.  I know, it's hysterical.  I had not received his report.

    I stopped paying when I received a report which told me

    that I had been overcharged by roughly half a million

    dollars.  Please.

Q.  So let me sum up your explanation, Mr Graham.  Is it

    your evidence that it is perfectly all right to pay more

    than the exorbitant sum when you were feeling extremely

    suspicious, so long as you --

COURT:  It was the question that he could agree to pay until

    he got information that it was --

MR ONG:  I understand.

COURT:  He has already given his answer.

MR ONG:  And your answer is really that as long as you have

    an agreement to review, that's all right, to pay when

    you are suspicious.  That's your point.

A.  My undertaking was to pay the bills as due.  I never

    said I was going to hold back bills.  I have to confess,

    I was not expecting a half-million-dollar surprise.

    I actually said to Mr Lee that 5 or 10 per cent is okay,

    I won't bother about it.

Q.  Mr Graham, isn't it true that if the defendant went bust

    or ran away with the money while the review was going

    on, the shareholder would lose the money, whatever the

    outcome of the review?

COURT:  That, I think, you can leave for submissions.  Just

    move on.

MR ONG:  Let me put it to you, Mr Graham, your actions and

    your payment are not consistent with the behaviour of

    someone who is an accountant, a company director,

    safeguarding money, who was feeling extremely suspicious

    about the party he is making payment to?

A.  I was reassured by Mr Lee.

Q.  Just agree or disagree.

A.  I abode by my obligations.

Q.  I am saying your conduct in paying the money is not

    consistent with your suspicions.  Agree or disagree?

A.  Disagree.

Q.  Mr Graham, let's go to the issue with my clients at page

    177 and 178 of your affidavit of evidence-in-chief.

A.  This is my affidavit?

Q.  Yes, yours.  Sorry, 176 and 177.  Do you have the pages,

    Mr Graham?

A.  Yes, I know these well.

Q.  Now, these are the same quotation for the construction

    of the brewery; am I right?

A.  Correct.

Q.  What is different is that on page 176 Crispin is

    described as "an independent consultant (Crispin)",

    correct?

A.  Correct.

Q.  And on page 177, Crispin, lo and behold, has become

    "a qualified engineer (Crispin)"?

A.  My description of qualifications in the construction

    industry leaves much to be desired, I have to agree.

Q.  Leaves much to be desired?  Let me see your exact words,

    Mr Graham.

        At page 31 of your affidavit of evidence-in-chief,

    the last paragraph at the bottom of the page --

COURT:  Which page?

MR ONG:  Page 31 of Mr Graham's affidavit of

    evidence-in-chief.  It's all part of a long paragraph 79

    which started on the preceding page, your Honour.

        The last paragraph at the bottom the page, starting

    with:

        "I then suggested Crispin Casimir as the expert,

    a professional I know and respected.  I was pleased to

    hear from William Lee that Mason Works had used him in

    the past and had no objections to him."

        Now, this is the part:

        "I then added a clause to the quotation documenting

    the review to be carried out by Crispin and stating the

    pricing was subject to that review."

        Here are bold words:

        "I handwrote the clause on two copies of the

    quotation, passed one to William Lee and I kept the

    other."

        Now, that suggest that you wrote them at the same

    time, Mr Graham, is that right?

A.  I wrote them about the same time.

Q.  One after the other, really.

A.  I wrote them ten or 15 minutes apart, because I wrote

    one and then some time later I realised, "Oh, there's

    only one copy; I had better get an original copy for

    William", and I wrote the second one.

Q.  So what you are really saying is that you wrote one

    copy, gave it to William, and he had left before you

    said, "Hey, let me write you another copy"?

A.  Could I ask if I said that?  I don't recall saying that.

Q.  No, you didn't, but I am trying to tell you that if you

    wrote them at the same time there is no way you could

    have made this error.

A.  Well, welcome to the real world: I did.  I made that

    error.  But to me it's not an error; it's simply -- I'm

    writing and trying to say the same thing and I get it

    a little bit wrong.  I called him an engineer --

Q.  You were in court, Mr Graham, when we had to dispute

    with Mr Crispin as to whether a building surveyor is the

    same as quantity surveyor.  You made a quantum leap to

    a qualified engineer, and you think that is nothing?  Is

    that your evidence?

A.  It is Crispin.

Q.  And you want us to believe that?

A.  It is Crispin.

Q.  It says Crispin, but why is a Crispin an engineer --

A.  There's only one Crispin.  He is not an engineer.

    I made an honest mistake.

Q.  I am not saying your mistake wasn't honest; I am saying

    the sequence cannot be right.  If you wrote them one

    after the other, it wouldn't happen.  So now you tell us

    it was 15 minutes apart?

A.  I didn't say exactly -- it could have been 15 minutes;

    it could have been 5 minutes; I was not timing it at the

    time.  It may have been one after the other.  It may

    have been 1 minute, 2 minutes, 5 minutes; I simply do

    not recall.  They were both written at the meeting and

    we both took an original.

Q.  It's fair to say, Mr Graham, that the "qualified

    engineer" document must have been the one you retained,

    isn't it, because that's what Crispin had?  He didn't

    have the other one.

A.  So William had the more accurate one.

Q.  So Crispin had the inaccurate one?

A.  William had the more accurate one.

Q.  Yes, logically, Crispin, to you, had the inaccurate one?

    "Yes" or "no".

A.  The inaccuracy is in the title of Crispin.

Q.  I am not asking about the reason for it; I am asking is

    there an inaccurate copy with you.

A.  There is a copy which describes Crispin as an engineer.

    That is a wrong description.

Q.  Your copy to Crispin is inaccurate, "yes" or "no"?

A.  By containing the word "engineer", he was wrongly

    described as an engineer.

Q.  So, "yes" or "no", it was inaccurate?

A.  Yes, calling Crispin an engineer is inaccurate.

Q.  You know, Mr Graham, may I respectfully suggest you

    don't cross your arms when you are testifying.

A.  I am tired.

Q.  His Honour is watching your demeanour.  That is just my

    suggestion; you don't have to follow it.

A.  I apologise, your Honour, I find rest in this way more

    easily.  This is more relaxing.  I am supporting myself

    this way.  If your Honour finds it offensive I will try

    to do something else.

COURT:  No, if you are tired we will give you a ten-minute

    break.  Are you tired?

A.  I respect the court has a need to move on.

COURT:  No, I'm not worried about that; I am concerned

    whether you are tired or not.

A.  Well, I have just got to get tired and start up again.

    Thank you, your Honour, I appreciate --

COURT:  We will have a short break.

(11.58 am)

                       (Short break)

(12.17 pm)

MR ONG:  Just a few short questions and we will be done,

    Mr Graham.  Bear with me.

        Now, this review by Crispin, let me take you back to

    page 177 of your affidavit of evidence-in-chief.  On the

    top left-hand corner you have written, "Same retention

    as main contract"; am I right?

A.  Correct.

Q.  Would you agree that this review by Crispin only applies

    to this brewhouse contract?

A.  I disagree.

Q.  Can you confirm, "yes" or "no", that you didn't apply

    this review by Crispin to any other quotation by

    Mason Works beyond this review -- beyond this contract?

A.  I applied this review to all the quotations by

    Mason Works.

Q.  My question is did you write this review by Crispin on

    all the other quotations by Mason Works, "yes" or "no"?

A.  No.

Q.  Then do you agree with me that this alleged review by

    Crispin only applies to this brewhouse contract?

A.  That was not what was agreed.

Q.  So you disagree?

A.  I disagree.

Q.  Do you agree that it was a mistake to write -- to

    describe Mr Crispin as a qualified engineer?

COURT:  He has already said so.

MR ONG:  Yes, sir.

        Can I put it to you that such a mistake did not

    matter to you because you never intended to act on your

    suspicions with this review clause on 8 November 2006?

    Do you agree or disagree?

A.  I disagree.

Q.  I put it to you that you didn't carry out any other

    check on the pricing even when your suspicions about

    Mason Works were at their deepest on 8 November 2006?

A.  I did not have to -- I'd an agreement for

    a comprehensive review

Q.  Let me put it to you, which is my case, that all along

    you knew you had contracted for the project at

    Mason Works' pricing.  Do you agree?

A.  I disagree.

Q.  I further put it to you that Fred Wong has all along

    informed you that Mason Works' charges were correct and

    in order; do you agree?

A.  I disagree.

Q.  I further put it to you that you paid Mason Works

    because you knew that if you didn't pay you would be in

    breach of contract; do you agree?

A.  I paid Mason Works in accordance with the schedule of

    payments.  I'm a good paymaster.

Q.  Disagree or agree?

A.  I did not pay them because of breaching contracts;

    I paid them because I was due to pay them.

Q.  No, the question is: you paid them because if you didn't

    pay you would be in breach of contract.  Agree or

    disagree?

A.  That is not why I paid them.

Q.  Do you agree or disagree?

A.  I disagree.

Q.  Right.  I further put it to you that you approached

    Mr Crispin so late because you had an arrangement with

    him such that he would provide a valuation report that

    Mason Works overcharged, regardless of his on belief.

    Do you agree or disagree?

A.  I have to correct your comment "so late".  I approached

    Mr Crispin when the project was completed.  It was not

    completed until the middle of February.

Q.  I will rephrase this "put", then.  I put it to you that

    you approached Crispin three months after November 2006

    because you had an arrangement with him such that he

    would provide a valuation report that Mason Works had

    overcharged regardless of whether it's true or not.  Do

    you agree?

A.  I did not talk to Crispin until January, how could

    I possibly have had an arrangement with him in November?

Q.  I put it to you that you had this arrangement starting

    from the time you had engaged him to counterclaim

    against contractors who sued you?

A.  I disagree.

Q.  Finally, I put it to you that your agreement with

    Crispin was that if Mason Works demanded for the balance

    payment, Crispin's report would be produced to frighten

    them into foregoing their claim -- do you agree?

A.  I don't think Mason Works frighten easily.  I disagree

    totally.

MR ONG:  That's all I have, your Honour.

COURT:  Thank you.

                 Re-examination by MR VIJAY

MR VIJAY:  It will be very short.

        I'll just re-examine on only one part.  With regard

    to Crispin Casimir's report, would you like to comment

    anything further on Crispin Casimir's finding of excess

    amount of 550?

COURT:  That is an open-ended question.  Crispin has given

    his own evidence.

MR VIJAY:  Yes.  Okay.  I have no re-examination.

COURT:  All right then.  Thank you very much.

                   (The witness withdrew)

MR VIJAY:  May I call the next witness, your Honour?

COURT:  Yes.

MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, given that we are going to be

    doing the next few witnesses very fast, perhaps my

    learned friend could let us have a sequence.

COURT:  Okay.

MR VIJAY:  I'm calling Fred Wong, followed by Chasko.  These

    two so far are outside.

COURT:  Would you have them ready this afternoon?

MR VIJAY:  Yes, your Honour they are all on standby.

COURT:  That's not giving them a sequence, if you are going

    to work on the basis of who comes first.  I just don't

    want any delay in the trial, so we must have the

    witnesses.

MR VIJAY:  The next witness is here.

COURT:  Yes, but this afternoon too, we don't want to wait

    for witnesses to arrive.

MR VIJAY:  No, there won't be any delay in witnesses.

        Your Honour, the next witness is Wong Liang Wei.  He

    is known as Frederick Wong.  His affidavit is in

    volume 2.

                 FREDERICK WONG (affirmed)

              Examination-in-chief by MR VIJAY

MR VIJAY:  You are Wong Liang Wei, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And your address is Block 356B, Admiralty Drive, #13-98

    Singapore, 752356?

A.  Yes.

Q.  What's your occupation?

A.  I'm a facility manager with Marvell Asia Pte Ltd.

Q.  Can I refer you to your affidavit, that's in the

    plaintiff's bundle of affidavits, volume 2.

        Can you confirm that the contents of your affidavit

    are true and correct?

A.  Yes.

MR VIJAY:  That's all, your Honour.

                Cross-examination by MR TAN

MR TAN:  Good afternoon, Mr Wong.  My name is Eugene Tan and

    I will be taking you through cross examination of your

    evidence.

        Mr Wong, can you tell us how many years of

    experience do you have in the construction industry?

A.  Construction industry -- zero.

Q.  Zero years.  Okay.  Mr Wong, when you were first

    approached by The Pump Room for The Pump Room project,

    this was in August 2006, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And one of the first things you were approached for was

    for technical expertise in the micro-piling of the

    project, is that correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And are you telling the court that, prior to this, you

    had zero years of construction experience?

A.  I have ten years' experience in facility management,

    acting as owner, acting as client, but not purely on

    construction.  It's a different discipline.

Q.  But you have some construction experience, isn't it,

    prior to The Pump Room project?  That's all I want to

    find out.

        To make it simple, for you to be able to advise on

    the technical matters, you must have had some

    experience?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And that's ten years of experience prior to The Pump

    Room?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Thank you.  When you were first approached in August

    2006, and before you were engaged for the project, you

    asked for a copy of Poole Associates' contract, isn't

    that correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And the reason you asked for a copy of Poole Associates'

    contract was because you wanted to draft C&P's contract

    for the project and you wanted to avoid duplicity in the

    works, am I correct?

A.  No.

Q.  So why did you ask for a copy of Poole Associates'

    contract, Mr Wong?

A.  I asked for all the available documents as at that point

    in time as before I'm being formally engaged, I was

    telling the client that let me decide whether do you

    really need to engage someone or I can just give you

    some advice from an owner's perspective and from my

    experience because initially contact wasn't -- was

    a very formal engagement.

Q.  Okay.  Can I ask you to take a look at Mr Shaharin Koh's

    affidavit of evidence-in-chief.  That's in volume 2 of

    the same bundle that you are looking at.

        Do you see the last tab, just before Paul Crispin

    Casimir, there is a tab, Shaharin Koh.

A.  Yes.

Q.  Can you turn to page 4 of that affidavit of

    evidence-in-chief.  Let's take a look at paragraph 10 of

    Mr Koh affidavit.  He says there:

        "We left it to Fred Wong to propose his terms and

    fees.  He asked for a copy of Ed Poole's contract so

    that, when he crafted his own contract, there will not

    be any duplicity."

        Based on what you just told us, Mr Wong, what Mr Koh

    says here at paragraph 10 is incorrect -- yes?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Thank you.  When you went through Poole Associates'

    contract, did you review it carefully?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And why did you review it carefully?

A.  Helping the client at that point of time to do just

    a simple rough assessment, so all the contracts they

    have was shown to me by Mr Shaharin at that point of

    time, which I would just give him -- I run through with

    him together and I advised him according to what is this

    about, what is that about.

Q.  Would I be correct to say that, in running through all

    the various documents in the project, including Poole

    Associates' contract, you wanted to determine each

    party's scope of works?

A.  No, not to determine, just to understand.

Q.  Did you need to understand the scope of works before you

    drafted your own contract or rather C&P's own contract?

A.  I need to have a clearer picture before I can say how

    can I contribute.

Q.  Okay.  Having this clear picture of how to contribute,

    you then drafted C&P's contract -- yes?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Did you take care when drafting C&P's contract to avoid

    any overlap in the scope of works with the other

    consultants?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Thank you.  Let's go back a little bit earlier to what

    you say, you reviewed Poole Associates' contract

    carefully in order to understand the situation.

        Can you turn to page 118 of Mr William Graham's

    affidavit of evidence-in-chief.  That is found in

    volume 1 of the affidavits of evidence-in-chief.  It has

    a red spine with one yellow tab.  Go to page 118.

        It has the headline there "Stage 1 programming"?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Do you see the first line there:

        "Poole Associates Pte Ltd will meet with the

    clients' project manager to establish administrative

    procedures ..."

        Did you see this clause when you were reviewing

    Poole Associates' contract before you drafted C&P's

    contract?

A.  Yes, I believe so.

Q.  So it was very clear to you from the beginning that

    Poole Associates were not the project manager for the

    project, am I correct to say that?

A.  No.

Q.  Did you ask the client, i.e. The Pump Room, who Poole

    Associates were supposed to meet, if they were supposed

    to meet the client's project manager?

        Maybe that's rather inelegant, the way I phrased it.

        Did you ask the employers who their project manager

    was when you saw this clause?

A.  Yes, I do.

Q.  And what did they tell you?

A.  The person heading for the overall project, as it says,

    that the whole event was a collective effort by the

    directors.

Q.  It was a collective effort by the directors, correct?

A.  For the whole event.

Q.  For the whole event, thank you.

        So when they told you this, in the context of this

    clause, did you understand, therefore, that the project

    managers were the directors as a collective effort?

A.  Sorry, can you repeat the question?

Q.  You know when you asked the employers who the project

    manager was, and this is to recap what you just said,

    their answer to you was that it was a collective effort

    by all the directors, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And, therefore, in the context of this clause, did you

    understand "project manager" to be referring to all the

    directors of the company?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Thank you.  Let's move on then.  When you came on board

    in August 2006, only the demolition works had been

    carried out in the project, am I correct to say that,

    meaning that the actual fitting out, the M&E works, the

    structural works -- no works had begun on that yet?

A.  I can't confirm that.

Q.  But one of the first things that you did when you came

    on board was to meet up with the various consultants to

    understand the project, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And one of your roles in understanding the project was

    to establish timelines for the completion of the

    project, am I correct to say that?

A.  No.

Q.  Okay.  Let's turn to the 1st defendant's bundle of

    documents, that is before you.  It's beige-coloured and

    blue spined.

        Do you see that, page 1, Mr Wong?  Page 1 is an

    email which you have sent to RSP and copied to Shaharin

    Koh, and Clark Martin.

        In that email, you refer to a meeting on the same

    day of 28 August 2006.  Who are the parties at this

    meeting?

A.  The meeting with RSP is between myself, Mr Sunny Wong

    and Lau Yoke Foong.

Q.  And you confirm that Mr Ed Poole from Poole Associates

    was not at this meeting?

A.  Yes.

Q.  "Yes" meaning he was not at the meeting, right?

A.  He's not at the meeting.

Q.  And during this meeting, if you look at paragraph 2 of

    your email, you all discuss and agree to complete, or to

    try and complete, the project within the timeline stated

    at paragraph 2, yes:  The Highlander, 1 October; The

    Pump Room, 1 November; the microbrewery, 1 December?

A.  That was a proposal by the RSP architect and structural

    engineers on the possible timeline, and they agreed that

    these are the dates that the things are -- very much

    would happen.

Q.  Am I correct that, subsequent to this meeting, you then

    draw up a works programme -- I will make life easier,

    why don't you look at page 7 of the same bundle, there

    is a Pump Room programme there.

        Was this done by you?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And in determining the proposed completion date of the

    project and drawing out this programme, can you confirm

    also you never consulted with Poole Associates?

A.  Yes, there isn't a need to --

COURT:  What do you mean by "yes"?  Did you consult them or

    did you not?

MR TAN:  I think he said, "Yes, there wasn't a need to", so

    meaning that you did not consult them?

A.  They were not consulted.

Q.  Because, as you said, there was no need to?

A.  Yes, in my opinion.

Q.  Because Poole Associates were not the project manager,

    right?

A.  No, they are the project managers.

Q.  Well, if they are the project manager, as you say,

    Mr Wong, or you claim, and not the collective efforts of

    the directors, don't you think that you should have

    consulted the project manager before you agreed on

    timelines?

A.  Yes, but I was told that there was no feedback from the

    project managers and I'm being tasked by my client,

    okay, to know more and advise them.

Q.  What I have done, Mr Wong, is, based on the documents

    that The Pump Room disclosed just before the trial,

    between RSP and The Pump Room, I have gone through

    these, I have extracted emails between you and RSP, they

    are in tab 1 of that bundle, pages 1 to 32.

        All I need you to confirm is, during this

    correspondence with RSP, you never thought it necessary

    to copy Poole Associates in these emails -- you can go

    through it.

        Your Honour, Mr Sreenivasan has suggested perhaps

    what we could do now is to take a break, let the witness

    go through the documents and he can come back and

    confirm this after lunch.  Would that be fine with your

    Honour?

COURT:  All right, yes.

MR TAN:  In that case, your Honour, shall we resume at 2.15?

COURT:  All right.

(12.47 pm)

                 (The luncheon adjournment)

(2.30 pm)

MR TAN:  Mr Wong.

A.  Yes.

Q.  Over the lunch break that we had did, you discuss your

    evidence with anyone?

A.  (Pause).  Can you be more elaborate?  What evidence?

Q.  Did you discuss your evidence that you gave just before

    lunch with anyone over the lunch break?

A.  No.

Q.  We'll move on.  Before lunch, I asked you to take a look

    at the documents at tab 1.  Have you gone through that?

A.  Yes.

Q.  In all these emails, you never copied Poole Associates?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So Poole Associates were not involved in this process?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And they were not involved in this process of

    establishing timelines because you didn't think it was

    appropriate for them to be involved?

A.  No.

Q.  Okay.  You did not copy them in because, as you said,

    you felt it was not necessary to do so?

A.  No, it's more on the face of timeline.

Q.  Sorry, can you repeat that?

A.  It's more on the face of the definition of timeline.

    There's lot of timelines involved in the whole project

    so if you can be more specific I will be able to answer

    you more accurately.

Q.  Okay, let's look at page 7 of the 1st defendant's bundle

    of documents.  That is a programme of works, yes?

A.  No.  If I'm allowed to elaborate more --

Q.  Yes, what is this, then, at page 7?

A.  There is an indication of statutory approvals.  It is on

    documentation, nothing to do with the actual work

    schedule.  It's what's the timeline for you to estimate,

    submit and get approval in Singapore.

Q.  Okay.  And am I correct to say that obtaining approval

    is necessary before construction works can begin?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So this programme would have an impact on the completion

    of the project; yes?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And you felt you didn't have to involve Poole Associates

    in this programme, yes?

A.  No, it's indication from the client.

COURT:  What did you say?

A.  I said it's not me not to involve Poole Associates; it's

    more an indication of the clients specifically telling

    me what's to assist them on which is on approvals.

COURT:  Answer his question.

A.  Do you mind repeating the question again?

COURT:  Can you repeat your question.

MR TAN:  Yes, your Honour.

        You felt there was no need to involve

    Poole Associates in this programme?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Thank you.

COURT:  Why?

A.  Because the clients asked me to -- asked me specifically

    on submission approval, so I just work on that portion.

MR TAN:  The client, did they give you instructions not to

    consult Poole Associates?

A.  No.  My instruction was direct from the client to give

    them more information on the submission approval

    process, which is what I did exactly on this chart,

    a clear elaboration to them what would be the estimated

    timeline.  All the correspondence was between me and the

    clients.  I am consulting to the client, so I don't know

    how I need to phrase that.

COURT:  Can you find out what is his exact position, then,

    he doesn't want to consult Poole Associates and he's

    doing it on his own?  What is he trying to do?

        I am asking Mr Tan.

        Can you elicit it from him?  What is his role?  No

    use talking about all this; what is his role?

MR TAN:  You have heard his Honour.  What is your role in

    the project?

A.  I'm a consultant to the client.

Q.  And what do you advise them on?

A.  What would be a normal case of A&A projects and what are

    the dos and don'ts as a client.

Q.  I think it's easier -- let's look at your contract.

    Page 9 of your affidavit of evidence-in-chief.

        Your job scope is spelled out at 2.0 all the way to

    2.4 of the contract.

A.  Yes.

Q.  Your Honour, do you have that page?

COURT:  What volume is it?

MR TAN:  It's volume 2 of the plaintiff's bundle of

    affidavits of evidence-in-chief, and his affidavit is on

    the fifth tab.

COURT:  What page are you looking at?

MR TAN:  Page 9, your Honour, that is where his contract is

    exhibited.

        I want to move things along, so I am not going to

    take you through every single job description here.

    Could you just confirm that you carried out everything

    listed in 2.0 to 2.4?

A.  No.

Q.  But you contractually undertook to do all of these; yes?

A.  Yes, my contract is to advise.

COURT:  What did you do then?  He's asking you whether you

    did everything in 2.1 and you said no.  Then what did

    you do and what did you not do?  Can we move along

    faster?

A.  Okay, I understand.

COURT:  He asked you whether you did all the things in 2.1,

    the job scope.  You said no.  Can you please explain

    yourself?

A.  What I have on the scope is everything that I can offer

    to the client.  If certain of the items is not called

    upon then I cannot say I have fulfilled the whole

    contract.  For example, 2.3.5.

COURT:  What you are saying is you offered to do all this

    but you didn't do it?

A.  I was not called upon to do it.

COURT:  So can you tell us, so that we can move along?

MR TAN:  Can you identify which of these you didn't do, from

    2.0 to 2.4.5?  Which of these did you not do?

A.  2.1.7.

Q.  Okay.  What else?

A.  2.1.10.

Q.  Some more?

A.  2.3.5, 2.3.6, and the whole of 2.4.

COURT:  All of 2.4?

A.  Yes.

COURT:  Okay, carry on.

MR TAN:  Let's move on to the review of quotations, shall

    we?

        You confirm during the course of the projects you

    were given quotations by Mason Works to review?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And this would fall under 2.3.2 of your contract,

    wouldn't it?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So when these quotations came in, what did you do?

A.  The quotation was passed on to me by Mr Shaharin where

    I validated the work to explain to them in detail in the

    area they can understand.

COURT:  He asked you what did you do when the quotations

    came to you.

A.  I look at them.

COURT:  Yes, and then?  What else do you do after looking at

    them?

A.  He explained it to the clients.

MR TAN:  Am I correct to say that, without your approval,

    Shaharin or The Pump Room would not sign these

    quotations?

A.  No.

Q.  So do you know of any instance where they have signed

    the quotation without first consulting you?

A.  Not any I know of.

Q.  In fact, isn't it true, Mr Wong, that you had specific

    instructions to endorse the works before Shaharin would

    sign the quotation?

        Let me make it easier for you.  Why don't you look

    at Pauline Han Lin Jee's affidavit of evidence in chief,

    volume 2, tab 4, page 16?

        It is an email from Pauline Graham.  If you look at

    paragraph 2 -- so my question to you is this.  You must

    first endorse the words in the quotation before Shaharin

    would sign the quotation; yes?  That was the practice

    that was set down?

A.  No, not exactly.  This is instruction from the client.

Q.  Yes, the instruction from the client was that you were

    to endorse the works before Shaharin would sign the

    quotation; yes?

A.  Yes.

COURT:  Why do you say "not exactly", then?

A.  Because I did reflect to the kind of things -- there are

    certain things beyond my limit on a verbal basis

COURT:  That was not his question.  His question was whether

    it is true to say that unless you endorsed the work they

    can't move?

A.  Sorry, your Honour, I don't really understand whether

    it's actually happening or what I was being told.

COURT:  Mr Wong, we would move faster --

A.  I understand.

COURT:  -- if you do understand the questions.

A.  Yes, your Honour.

COURT:  So what is your clear answer now?  Correct, isn't

    it?  Or is it not correct?

MR TAN:  Do you want me to repeat the question?

A.  Yes.

Q.  It was the practice for you to endorse the works in the

    quotation before Shaharin would sign the quotation, yes?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And before you endorsed the works, Mr Wong, you would

    review the quotation diligently and competently; yes?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And in carrying out your duties and reviewing you must

    have reviewed the cost as well, didn't you?  Did you

    look at the pricing in the quotation when you endorsed

    the works?

A.  No.

Q.  So if the quotation was for 1 million dollars, you would

    still endorse it?

A.  I endorse the quotation, not based on the pricing.

Q.  No, my question to you is: if a quotation was given to

    you by Mason Works and you saw 1 million dollars, would

    you highlight it to The Pump Room that something was

    wrong?

A.  No.

COURT:  Are you sure?  He's asking you about a situation

    where it's obviously out of line?

A.  Sorry, your Honour --

MR TAN:  Do you want me to repeat that question again?

A.  Yes, please.

Q.  If you received a quotation from Mason Works for

    1 million dollars, would you highlight it to The Pump

    Room that something was wrong with the quotation?

A.  No.

COURT:  To be fair to him, you have to give a figure, if

    it's 1 million, when actually it's worth how much.

MR TAN:  Fair enough, I will rephrase the question.

        If you received a quotation for 1 million dollars

    for, say, a simple installation of a fan, would you

    highlight this to the client?

A.  No.

Q.  You would still endorse the works, even though -- sorry,

    let me just rephrase that.

COURT:  What was the illustration you gave, the installation

    of what?

MR TAN:  The installation of a fan, your Honour.

COURT:  Did you appreciate the question that he gave you?

A.  I hear the question and it's something that I have not

    looked into it because the whole quotation consists of

    a lot of things.  Pricing was something that I was not

    looking into.  I don't have the expertise, your Honour,

    so I would not know.

COURT:  Can you tell me what you were looking at?

A.  The description of the work and also the understanding

    the work so that I can relate it to the client.

COURT:  But he is asking you a simple question.  Supposing

    we are talking about the installation of a fan, and

    there is a charge of 1 million dollars, you are saying

    you will not even tell your client, "Hey, something is

    funny here".

A.  I missed out the fan; I thought he was asking about the

    whole cost.

        Do you mind repeating the question?

MR TAN:  If you received a quotation from Mason Works for

    the installation of a fan and there was a price of

    1 million dollars next to that, would you highlight that

    to The Pump Room?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Yes?

COURT:  You must have heard, because I asked him to give an

    illustration.

A.  I am sorry, your Honour.

COURT:  To be fair to you, and yet you said "no" so

    vehemently.

A.  Sorry, your Honour.

MR TAN:  When you were reviewing these quotations, Mr Wong,

    were you given instructions by The Pump Room to liaise

    with Poole Associates?

A.  No.

Q.  Let's move on.  In your affidavit of evidence-in-chief,

    you say that you left the project in October 2006?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And after you left, Melvin Lim from the same company

    took over your roles and responsibilities in the

    project; am I correct?

A.  No.

Q.  No?  Look at your affidavit, the last page, page 7,

    paragraph 19, do you see there:

        "After [you] had left I heard from Melvin Lim from

    C&P Contract Services that the 2nd defendant were

    claiming that they had bought steel and had

    prefabricated the steel materials.  They wanted to

    charge the plaintiff for the cost of the steel."

        Doesn't that suggest that Melvin Lim from C&P was

    still involved in the project or had taken over from

    you?

A.  No, he has not taken the consultant role from me.

Q.  Are you saying that after you left C&P had nothing to do

    with the project?

A.  C&P was engaged to do some minor works on the building

    itself.

Q.  So they were still involved in the project?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And who from C&P was still involved in the project?

A.  Mr Melvin Lim.

Q.  And when did their involvement with the project end,

    Mr Wong?

A.  That one I am not sure.

Q.  Mr Wong, I want you to take a look at the

    2nd defendant's bundle of documents.

        Volume 2, your Honour.

        Can you turn to page 425?  Do you see that?

A.  Yes.

Q.  It is an email from you to the 2nd defendant's William

    Lee on 31 January 2007?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Am I correct to say that your involvement with the

    project did not end in October but carried on

    until January 2007?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So your statement that you had left the project

    in October 2006 is wrong?

        It's a simple question with a "yes" or "no" answer.

A.  Yes.

Q.  So in January 31 2007, what you were liaising with

    Mr William Lee was the handling and commissioning of the

    project deliverables, 1.  And 2, the costing and

    payment, yes?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So I go back to your contract again.  Bear with me.

    2.1.10, page 10 of your affidavit.  Earlier you

    testified that 2.1.10, you did not carry this out for

    the project, right?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Now, is that statement wrong, looking at page 425, your

    email of 31 January 2007?

A.  (Pause).  Yes.

Q.  So you did actually assist The Pump Room in

    commissioning and handing over the project works after

    they were completed, yes?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And part of your handing-over duties, as you will see at

    page 425, was looking at costing and payment; yes?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So you did look at the costing of the entire projects

    works; yes?

A.  Yes.

MR TAN:  Very well, your Honour.  I'm just going to put my

    case and close.

        I'm going to put my case to you, Mr Wong.  You can

    just agree or disagree.

        I'm going to put it to you that Poole Associates

    were not the project managers of The Pump Room, "yes" or

    "no"?

A.  No.

Q.  I am going to put it to you that C&P Contract Pte Ltd

    were the project managers of The Pump Room; do you agree

    or disagree?

A.  Disagree.

Q.  And I am going to put it to you that, as project

    managers of The Pump Room, C&P Contracts had a duty to

    monitor the quotations that came from in Mason Works.

    Do you agree or disagree?

A.  Disagree.

Q.  And lastly I am going to put it to you that you are now

    trying to blame Poole Associates for not carrying out

    your own work, do you agree or disagree?

A.  Disagree.

MR TAN:  I have no further questions, your Honour.

COURT:  I have just one.  On what basis are you saying that

    Poole Associates are the project managers?

A.  They are the one in writing that has a contract and has

    a sum that is being paid as project managers.

COURT:  Do you know how to interpret contracts?

A.  What I understand is what is being shown to me by the

    clients.

COURT:  What ...?

A.  What is being shown to me by the client.  They have

    a project manager and my role wasn't a project manager.

COURT:  So you do not know whether they are the project

    managers.  You are saying that you were told by your

    client?

A.  Yes, and from the documentation.

COURT:  All right.

                Cross-examination by MR ONG

MR ONG:  May it please your Honour.

        Good afternoon, Mr Wong.  My name is Ong Ying Ping.

    I'm counsel for Mason Works, the 2nd defendant in this

    action.

        I just have a few short questions for you.

        The same page, 425, the emails that you sent to

    Mr William Lee.  So is it correct that you had a meeting

    with Mr William Lee on Saturday, 3 February 2007 at

    The Pump Room, "yes" or "no"?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Were Mr and Mrs Graham also present at this meeting?

    Yes or no?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Thank you.  At this meeting, did you go through the

    entire cost or payment summary of Mason Works invoices

    to The Pump Room?

A.  Can you repeat that again?

Q.  On that meeting on 3 February, did you and Mr William

    Lee go through the costs and payment summary of

    Mason Works' bills to The Pump Room?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Did Mr or Mrs Graham inform you that they have already

    engaged Mr Crispin to review Mason Works' pricing at

    that time?  "Yes" or "no"?

A.  No.

Q.  Mr William Lee tells me -- and I'm just asking you to

    confirm whether this is so -- he tells me that you told

    him on that meeting that it was a difficult job you were

    doing because you were not being paid extra; is that

    true?

A.  No.

Q.  You were being paid --

A.  Yes.

Q.  -- to attend that meeting?

A.  Sorry, please repeat -- was I being paid for the job or

    paid to attend the meeting?

Q.  Paid to attend.  I mean, you have left the job, by your

    testimony?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So you are coming back, and basically you weren't going

    to be paid for this coming back, are you?

A.  Yes.

Q.  You were going to be paid?

A.  I am not going to paid for this.

MR ONG:  Okay.  That's all.

        No further questions, your Honour.

COURT:  Yes.  Re-examination.

                 Re-examination by MR VIJAY

MR VIJAY:  You were asked whether you were looking into

    costing, and you said "yes".  Could you clarify what

    exactly you mean by you were looking into costing?

A.  Based on 2 -- based on item 2.3.2, after I assist owner

    on the overall project, cost control was the clear

    definition and costing involving that provisions, okay,

    for the project sum.  Things like variation order and

    retention amount on how the management of the whole cost

    in the project.

Q.  Can you put it in just simple language what exactly you

    did?

A.  More on --

Q.  Without the technical terms.

A.  More on the overall cost control.

Q.  How do you do that?

A.  Knowing what are the project progression, okay, at which

    point of time, how do you identify what are the cost

    involvements.

Q.  Okay, you say you looked into costing and at the same

    time you said you don't look into pricing.  Can you

    clarify what you mean by this?

A.  When it comes to costing, it's that the client, let's

    say, has a budget of, let's say, 600,000 dollars to do

    the project; that he needs to understand that his total

    cost, inclusive of all items, is this amount.  Whereas,

    the pricing I would not be able to determine whether

    this price is the right price or is it right or

    so-called adequate to the job, being identification of

    the quantifying of the pricing.

Q.  Mr Wong, you said earlier on you left the job in October

    2006 -- around October 2006?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Then you said that you were back doing something on

    3 February 2007, and just now you were asked that you

    left the job and you came back and you were sort of

    complaining that it was a difficult job and so on.

    Could you explain or clarify these answers?

A.  Officially, I left the job in October 2008, because my

    other engagement has changed I need to report to my next

    job early.  But subsequently, because of the

    relationship I have with the client, on off he calls me

    to recall events or ask me for any advice, I will

    so-called give.  And on comes to the day in February,

    okay, I did arrange a meeting on request of the client

    with Mason Works, and I was trying to tell William that,

    "It's a difficult job; let's get it over with.  I am not

    being paid but yet I am still willing to contribute to

    close the job".

MR VIJAY:  I have no other questions.

        Your Honour, can the witness have permission to

    leave?

COURT:  Yes, you are discharged.

                   (The witness withdrew)

        Who is next?

MR VIJAY:  This is Alex Chasko.  Alex David Chasko.

 

                 ALEX DAVID CHASKO (sworn)

              Examination-in-chief by MR VIJAY

MR VIJAY:  Your name is Alex David Chasko?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And your address?  Can you give us your latest address?

        Your Honour, this witness is no longer in Singapore.

        Can you give us your present address, please?

A.  My present address is 146 Rosemount in Thurles, County

    Tipperary, Ireland.

Q.  Your occupation?

A.  A brewer.

Q.  Can I refer you to your affidavit?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Can you confirm that the contents of your affidavit are

    true and correct?

A.  Yes, they are true.

MR VIJAY:  That's all, your Honour.

        Cross-examination by MR SREENIVASAN

MR SREENIVASAN:  May it please your Honour, I will be

    conducting the cross-examination on behalf of the

    1st defendant.

        Now, Mr Chasko, if you look at your affidavit and if

    you turn to the second page you stated that you were

    appointed as the head Brewer and came to Singapore for

    an interview in July 2006; am I right?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And as far as this interview was concerned, you were

    interviewed by Mr Graham; am I right?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And as a brewer, in the course of your training you

    would have been trained in the type of equipment that's

    needed in brewing beer?

A.  Well, yes, my training --

Q.  Both the equipment and the process?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And therefore you would have had a say in the type of

    equipment that should be acquired?

A.  No.

Q.  Now, you were recruited to be the head brewer; am I

    right?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So the type and quality of beer would have been

    something you would be responsible for; am I right?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And of course it's good to have the right equipment to

    make good beer?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Who was responsible for acquiring the brewery equipment

    then?

A.  That was done before I was hired on to the project.

Q.  But do you know who did it?

A.  My -- actually, I don't.

Q.  It was done before you came in?

A.  Yes.

Q.  It was something you were not involved in?

A.  Not at all.

Q.  And you've got no idea about it?

A.  Well, I could speculate but it would be purely

    speculation.

Q.  In fact it would be speculation to talk about things

    that happened before you came on board; am I right?

A.  Yes.

Q.  It would be speculation to form views on what happened

    before you came on board?

A.  Yes.

Q.  In fact, it would be guesswork, gossip, hearsay?

A.  Yes.  For me to reply on that, yes.

Q.  So, if you look at what happened before you joined

    in September 2006, when you came to Singapore to start

    work, previous events would be guesswork, gossip and

    hearsay; am I right?

A.  No.

Q.  Paragraph 3:

        "After my appointment, I left for Scotland and

    returned in August 2006."

A.  Yes.

Q.  And you were shocked to see nothing much had happened?

A.  Yes, since July, yes.

Q.  As the intended head brewer, you would have been

    concerned about the type of equipment that was coming

    in; am I right?

A.  Yes.

Q.  You would have been concerned whether proper

    specifications were being met for the equipment?

A.  Yes.

Q.  I mean, that's what you're going to use to make the

    beer?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And while the workman should not blame his tools if, you

    had horrible equipment the beer would be horrible,

    however talented you are?

A.  Was there a question?

Q.  Yes.

A.  And the question was ...?

Q.  If the equipment was horrible, the beer would be

    horrible, however talented you were?

A.  No, I would disagree with that, but that's another

    issue.

Q.  So weren't you interested in finding out how the

    equipment was being acquired?

A.  Was I interested in ...?  Like I said, that decision was

    made before I --

Q.  I know, but were you interested in finding out how it

    was being done?

A.  Uh, yeah.

Q.  Were you interested in finding out who the supplier was?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Were you interested in finding out who was setting the

    specifications for the brewery equipment?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So who was?

A.  By the directors of The Pump Room.

Q.  Who?  Which director in particular?

A.  My belief, although I don't know directly, is that Chris

    Shelley --

Q.  And what is Chris Shelley's expertise in the brewing of

    beer?

A.  Chris Shelley has a professional history with a company

    called APV.

Q.  And what does that stand for?

A.  I believe it used to stand for Aluminium Pressure

    Vessels, but I don't think it stands for anything any

    more.

Q.  Chris Shelley is now the CEO of a dairy farm in

    New Zealand, am I right?

A.  Again, I wouldn't know.

Q.  Well, you can take it from me.  And while beer is

    mother's milk to some of us, the running of a dairy farm

    and running a brewery is quite different, isn't it?

A.  Well, I have never run a dairy, so I couldn't say.

Q.  Now, would you agree with me that you ought to know, you

    ought to have found out what kind of equipment you were

    getting?

A.  That I ought to have?

Q.  Yes.

A.  No, I wouldn't agree with you.

Q.  The vats that were used for the brewery --

A.  Yes.

Q.  -- were dairy vats; am I right?

A.  No.

Q.  They were custom-made brewery vats?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Okay.  You met Ed Poole in July 2006; am I right?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And you were told that The Pump Room was to have a soft

    opening in October 2006?

A.  Yes.

Q.  That is why you were surprised when you came back; am I

    right?

A.  Yes, I thought that there would be more progress made,

    yes.

Q.  Can you turn to page 3, paragraph 7; you met Ed Poole

    socially?

A.  Yes.

Q.  On one occasion there was a pub at Clarke Quay called

    the Crazy Elephant; am I right?

A.  Yes.

Q.  In the next paragraph you say:

        "Ed Poole told us that he had been given

    an opportunity to be a shareholder"; am I right?

A.  Yes.

Q.  If we go up one paragraph:

        "Ed Poole said he was going to use the money to pay

    his mortgage"; am I right?

A.  That's what he had said at the time, yes.

Q.  Let's get the sequence right now.

A.  Okay.

Q.  When Ed Poole said he was going to use the money to pay

    the mortgage, it was in the context of the offer made to

    him to be a shareholder; am I right?

        Let me replay the conversation, it might trigger

    your memory.  You all were talking about him being

    a shareholder and he said, "Heck, no, I'm going to pay

    my money to pay the mortgage.  The pubs are a risky

    business"; am I right?

A.  He didn't say those exact words but, in general, yes,

    the conversation was with regards to Ed being offered an

    ability to come into The Pump Room and that he was going

    to pass on that, and that he would take the money that

    he was making from The Pump Room and pay off his

    mortgage, yes.

Q.  That's right.  But if you read paragraph 7 of your

    affidavit -- read it carefully, take your time -- the

    first two paragraphs, it doesn't quite give you that

    meaning, does it, Mr Chasko?

A.  That's what I'm reading.

Q.  Does it give the same meaning?

A.  Yes.

Q.  You think it does?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Okay.  You see, Mr Chasko, I'm going to submit at the

    end of this case -- or rather Mr Tan will -- that you

    have not been honest because these two paragraphs give

    a different meaning, so I'm giving you a chance to look

    at these two paragraphs.

A.  I don't see what you're referring to.

Q.  Okay, no problem, let's move on.  Turn to page 4.

A.  Yes.

Q.  The second paragraph of paragraph 9.

A.  Yes.

Q.  "As time went on, it became clear to me that Ed Poole

    did not know much about setting up or designing

    a microbrewery."

        You are referring to the setting up of

    a microbrewery; are you talking about the setting up of

    the equipment, the piping, the pumps, or are you talking

    about the aesthetics, or what?

A.  Both.

Q.  Do you agree that to understand the setting up of the

    equipment of a microbrewery, you need some specialist

    knowledge?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And to design a microbrewery, you also need some

    specialist knowledge?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Yesterday -- and I am sure my learned friend Mr Vijay

    will object if I have my facts wrong -- Mr Graham told

    us that Mr Poole's scope of work did not include the

    microbrewery equipment, were you aware of that?

A.  No.

Q.  And if his scope of work did not include setting up the

    microbrewery equipment, then it doesn't matter whether

    he knew anything about it or not?

A.  I'm sorry, you're asking --

Q.  You made the comment, as if it's a point, that Ed Poole

    didn't know anything about it, but wasn't his job, then

    it doesn't matter whether he knew anything --

A.  If it wasn't his job, then it wouldn't matter, yes.

Q.  Let's move on.

A.  All right.

Q.  Page 5, on the top of the paragraph, you say that he had

    no idea about the loading required for such a brewery to

    be installed, can you see that?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Do you agree that the loading factor comes from the

    weight of the equipment?

A.  Yes.

Q.  It comes from the size of the equipment?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And, if you look at loading, it's the weight over the

    cross-section, if you are talking about the vats; am I

    right?

A.  Over the area of the floor, yes.

Q.  And then it would also depend on which part of the floor

    it's put at; am I right?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So if I put a vat directly above a beam, it might be

    able to take the load, while if I put the vat in the

    middle of the floor, with no beam, it might not be able

    to take the load?

A.  I'm not a structural engineer.

Q.  Exactly.  Was Ed Poole a structural engineer?

A.  No.

Q.  Do you agree that RSP Architects were the structural

    engineers for this project?

A.  Again, my scope of work was related to brewing beer.

COURT:  But you were able to comment on other people's

    works, so can you please answer the question.

A.  Okay, so my understanding -- (unclear -- simultaneous

    speakers) --

MR SRINEEVASAN:  -- (unclear -- simultaneous speakers) --

    RSP Architects the structural engineers of the project?

A.  Yes.

Q.  We know about micro-piling, am I right?

A.  Do I know about micro-piling?

Q.  There was micro-piling involved in this project?

A.  Yes, there was micro-piling involved in the project --

Q.  In fact there were discussions on how to avoid the

    micro-piling if possible; am I right?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Fred Wong was brought in as part of those discussions?

A.  Fred Wong was involved in those discussions, yes.

Q.  And the reason to try and avoid the micro-piling was to

    shorten the time to get the brewery ready?

A.  There were sub-reasons --

Q.  And to save cost, two reasons -- faster, cheaper?

A.  Yes.

Q.  But, in the end, the structural engineers required

    micro-piling to be done; am I right?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And that delayed the project?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Now, of course, the discussions going on on whether

    micro-piling was or was not needed included Mr Fred

    Wong; am I right?

A.  Yes, I would imagine that they did.

Q.  And we have heard evidence that Fred Wong came into the

    picture at the end of August; am I right?

A.  Around that time, yes.

Q.  So the discussions must have been after that; am I

    right?

A.  There were discussions going on before August and then

    after.

Q.  And it continued after?

A.  Yes.

Q.  The decision to split the restaurant works from the

    brewery works was made in September 2006; am I right?

A.  I wouldn't dispute that fact.

Q.  And, by that time, it was found that you can't avoid

    micro-piling; am I right?

A.  There was a decision made to micro-pile, yes.

Q.  So, if micro-piling was not necessary, there would be no

    need to split the two; am I right?

A.  If micro-piling wasn't necessary, there wouldn't be

    a need to --

Q.  To split the brewery works away from the restaurant

    works; am I right?

A.  Well --

Q.  Or you don't know?

A.  Yeah, I don't know.

Q.  So let's stick to brewing beer.

A.  Okay.

Q.  Can you turn to page 5 of your affidavit.  You have

    a long part on the 8 November meeting?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Was Ed Poole at that meeting?

A.  No.

Q.  Was anyone from Poole Associates at that meeting?

A.  No.

Q.  That meeting had detailed discussions about Mason Works'

    costings; am I right?

A.  No, it didn't have detailed discussions.

Q.  That was a meeting where it was decided to have Crispin

    to review the cost?

A.  Yes.

Q.  That was also the meeting where Mr Graham was upset and

    concerned about the project budget?

A.  Yes.

Q.  That was the meeting where Mr Graham was concerned when

    the whole project would be completed?

A.  Yes.

Q.  If there was anybody responsible for ensuring the

    project was done on time and on budget, that was a very

    important meeting?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Did Graham call Ed Poole or anybody from his company?

A.  I wouldn't know.

Q.  Did you?

A.  Did I call Ed Poole?  No.

Q.  In your presence, did Mrs Graham call Ed Poole or

    anybody from his company?

A.  Not in my presence, no.

MR SRINEEVASAN:  No further questions, your Honour.

COURT:  Thank you.

                Cross-examination by MR ONG

MR ONG:  Good afternoon, Mr Chasko.  My name is Ong Ying

    Ping.  I am counsel for Mason Works.  I will just be

    taking you through this same part of your affidavit at

    page 6, the last paragraph.  Can we just let me just

    quickly read it for you at the first line:

        "William Lee was visually upset.  He assured William

    Graham and Pauline that his prices were fair and he was

    not trying to cheat them.  He kept reassuring them of

    the same.

        "Finally, William Graham suggested that they would

    like the whole project costing to be reviewed by an

    independent person.  William Lee was agreeable to this.

    William Graham suggested appointing one Crispin Casimir.

    William Lee was quite happy to hear Crispin Casimir's

    name and said he has worked with him before, he was

    agreeable to having Crispin Casimir review the costs for

    the whole project and once again assured William Graham

    and Pauline that the prices were fair.

        "William Graham then wrote something to that effect

    in the quotation."

        Is that your testimony?

A.  That's what my affidavit says, yes.

Q.  Now, Mr Chasko, can you turn to Mr William Graham's

    affidavit.

A.  I don't know where that would be.

Q.  The thick red bundle.  Can you turn to pages 176 and

    177.

A.  Yes.

Q.  Let me take you to the handwritten portions on the

    bottom left-hand corner.

A.  Of which page?  Both pages?

Q.  Yes, both pages, but let me start with 176 first.

A.  Okay.

Q.  Is this the "something written to that effect by

    Mr William Graham"?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Let's read it:

        "Amount to be reviewed and confirmed as reasonable

    by independent consultants (Crispin).  Same retention as

    main contract.  Otherwise, Crispin to recommend."

        Is that what you read?

A.  That's what I read here, yes.

Q.  Now, the words "same retention as main contract" would

    suggest that the pricing review by the independent

    person applies only to this quotation, doesn't it, "the

    same retention"?

A.  I couldn't speculate as to the legal implications of

    those words.  I mean, I am not an expert.

Q.  That's fine, but you are very sure that we're talking

    about the whole project?

A.  Yes.

Q.  You see, you are very sure, when you don't really know,

    do you?

A.  No, I --

Q.  You are very sure it's the whole project?

A.  I am very sure that the discussion that I heard in the

    meeting was with reference to the whole project.

Q.  All right.  Let me turn to the next page, which

    Mr Graham assures us was written in the space of less

    than 15 minutes.

A.  Mm-hmm.

Q.  This is the same contract, the same handwritten part.

    Let's look at the bottom left-hand corner.  Can you read

    it for us now?

A.  "To be reviewed and approved as reasonable by qualified

    engineer", and then in caps there is (Crispin).

Q.  What does it say before "Crispin".

A.  "Qualified engineer".

Q.  Turn to the page before, and see what it says before

    "Crispin"?

A.  "Independent consultant".

Q.  Not the same, is it?

A.  Well, they are obviously different words, yes.

Q.  So your boss made a mistake, didn't he?

A.  I couldn't say if he had made a mistake or not.

Q.  Are those few words the same?

A.  No, those words are not the same.

Q.  It stands to reason, your boss made a mistake?

A.  Like I said, I couldn't say that he made a mistake.

Q.  You see, you can't be sure when he made a mistake, but

    you are really sure you are talking about reviewing the

    whole project.

A.  I am really sure that the conversation that I witnessed

    was with regard to the whole project, yes.

Q.  Well, I put it to you that you are taking a slanted view

    of the evidence.  Do you agree?

A.  No.

Q.  I suggest to you that your own lack of knowledge of the

    effect of these clauses should lead you to say you don't

    really know the effect of this review.  Do you agree?

A.  No, I wouldn't agree with that.

MR ONG:  I have no further questions, your Honour.

MR VIJAY:  I have no re-examination.

COURT:  Thank you.  You are discharged.

                   (The witness withdrew)

COURT:  Who is next?

MR VIJAY:  Shaharin Koh, your Honour.

                SHAHARIN ABAS KOH (affirmed)

              Examination-in-chief by MR VIJAY

Q.  Do you have your affidavit?  You are Shaharin Koh; your

    address is block 132, Clarence Lane, #02-14S Singapore

    40132?

A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  State your occupation.

A.  I'm the operations manager for Pasta Fresca De Salvatore

    Group.

Q.  Can I refer you to your affidavit of evidence-in-chief?

A.  This was done -- I am no longer in the company now so

    should I state --

Q.  No, your present occupation, please, just state your

    present occupation?

A.  Present occupation, I am now the operations manager for

    Queen & Mangosteen Pte Ltd.

Q.  Can I refer you to your affidavit of evidence-in-chief?

    Do you confirm the contents to be true and correct?

A.  I do.

MR VIJAY:  Thank you.

                Cross-examination by MR TAN

MR TAN:  Good afternoon, Mr Koh.  My name is Eugene Tan and

    I'm counsel for the 1st defendant, Poole Associates.

        Now, can we take a look at your affidavit of

    evidence-in-chief.  That's in volume 2 of the

    plaintiff's bundle of affidavits, the thick red bundle

    with tabs by the side.  Volume 2.

A.  Yes.

Q.  Tab 6.

A.  Okay.  Which one, sorry?

Q.  Paragraph 10?

A.  Page ...?

Q.  Page 4.

A.  My affidavit?

Q.  Yes.

A.  Paragraph 10, yes.

Q.  Just leave it open at that page first.

        You were the general manager for The Pump Room --

A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  -- from July 2006 to January 2006?

A.  Yes, I was -- sorry, January 2007.

Q.  Sorry, I stand corrected, January 2007.  And in your CV

    you say that you oversaw the setting up and the planning

    of a microbrewery and restaurant operations --

A.  Yes, I did.

Q.  -- during that period of time.

        What were your duties in the project?  Can you

    identify them?

A.  My duties were to set up the restaurant, ensure that

    it's operationally working, hire the staff, buy in the

    plates, buy in the sound equipment, help higher the

    entertainment the secure manager, et cetera et cetera.

Q.  What about the construction aspect of it?  What did you

    do for the construction aspect?

A.  Construction aspect, I -- as an operator of

    a restaurant, I give in my inputs to ensure that the

    restaurant setup would be running as it is supposed to

    be running, later on when after the construction is

    done.

Q.  Did you act as The Pump Room's representative vis-a-vis

    the consultants?

A.  Sorry, can I understand that question again, please?

Q.  Did you act as the owner's representative vis-a-vis the

    various consultants on the project?

A.  If -- the general manager for the project, would be

    constituting as a representative of the company, yes.

Q.  Okay.  And you liaised with Fred Wong in August 2006;

    yes?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And the purpose was to engage him to help out in the

    project, yes?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And prior to engaging Fred Wong, you gave him a copy of

    Poole Associates' contract; yes?

A.  No.

Q.  You did not, okay.  Look at paragraph 10 of your

    affidavit.  Do you see that?

A.  Yes.

Q.  "Fred Wong asked for a copy of Ed Poole's contract so

    that when he drafted his own contract there would not be

    any duplicity."

        So before you received C&P's contract, you gave C&P

    a copy of Poole Associates' contract with The Pump Room?

A.  Fred Wong asked for a copy of the contract, but I don't

    remember giving the copy of the contract to him.  He

    asked for it but it wasn't in my capacity to give it to

    him.

Q.  So you didn't give him the contract at all?

A.  No, as far as I remember I don't think so.

Q.  Let's move on, then, to C&P's contract, Mr Koh.  That

    can be found at page 11.  Or maybe stick with the same

    bundle.  If you look at the tab, you will see "Wong

    Liang Wei" just above "Shaharin Koh".

A.  Yes.

Q.  Let's turn to page 9 of that affidavit.  This was

    a contract given to you on 21 August 2006?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And you signed the contract on The Pump Room's behalf?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Before you signed the contract, did you look through the

    terms of the contract?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So would you agree with me that Fred Wong's role was not

    merely to supervise or assist in the technical aspects

    of the project?

A.  I disagree.

Q.  Let's look at paragraph 11 of your affidavit.  Do you

    see that?  Fred Wong -- are you there?

A.  Yeah.

Q.  "Fred Wong's role was very clear: he was to assist and

    advise the plaintiff on the technical aspects of the

    whole project, i.e. the micro-piling and the

    microbrewery?

A.  Yes.

Q.  This was not only his responsibility in the project,

    right?  Or was this the only responsibility in the

    project?

A.  This was his responsibility in the project.

Q.  Was it the only responsibility -- or was it his only

    responsibility?

A.  That was basically the responsibility of the project.

Q.  If you look at the contract at pages 9 to 11, C&P's

    contract, would you agree with me that nowhere in the

    contract does it limit his scope of works only to

    micro-piling and microbrewery?

A.  That would be true.

Q.  Sorry?

A.  That would be true.

Q.  Your other responsibilities in the project were to

    review the quotations that came in from the

    2nd defendants, i.e. Mason Works?

A.  Not to review --

Q.  Okay, not to review.  Was there a procedure in place for

    both Fred Wong and you to look at the quotations when

    they came in from Mason Works?

A.  There was an instruction from Pauline Graham, which is

    another director, to make sure that whatever that comes

    through from Mason Works, the amount of works or the

    cost that's involved -- the amount of work that's

    involved is actually true to what is actually being

    charged to us.

Q.  The amount of ...?  Sorry, what?

A.  The amount of work is actually true to what is actually

    being charged to us.  May I give an example?

Q.  I'm going to ask you the next question.  When you talk

    about the amount of work that was correct, what are you

    referring to?

A.  An example would be if they were to charge us for

    putting up a brick wall; the brick wall is done, and

    yes, the amount then is correct; they would charge us to

    put up a brick wall and we'd pay for the brick wall

    that's being put up.

Q.  No, just to clarify -- because I think you are talking

    about invoices -- we are talking about before the works

    begin, you would be given a quotation of the works to be

    carried out; yes?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And before you sign on the quotation, you would review

    the quotation, yes?

A.  I wouldn't say I reviewed the quotation, because a

    review of a quotation would be to have three or four

    other quotations coming in, then you review the

    quotations.

Q.  Would you sign the quotation blindly?

A.  No.

Q.  So you would look through the quotation first?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And before you signed on the quotations, you had to

    ensure that Fred had endorsed the works there; yes?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And if he didn't give his approval, you couldn't sign

    the quotation; yes?

A.  It was not to get Fred Wong's approval; it was to assist

    in contract -- he was supposed to assist us and ensure

    that the work is in accordance to all the -- the quoted

    prices for the quoted work is in accordance with what

    needs to be done.

Q.  Okay.  Mr Koh, would you sign the quotation if Fred

    didn't give the go-ahead?

A.  Yes, would I still sign it.

Q.  Would you still sign it?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Okay.  Let's look at Pauline Graham's affidavit.

        I brought Fred Wong through this email so I thought

    it would be fair to bring you through it as well.

        Pauline Graham is in the same volume of affidavits.

    If you look at page 16 of her affidavit, the second

    paragraph --

A.  Yes.

Q.  Let me read it for you:

        "Shah [that would be referring to you, wouldn't

    it?], could you please look into all the requests here

    as stated by William and to get Fred to endorse his okay

    so that we can get the work started.  As is the practice

    set out, unless Fred Wong endorses any works we will not

    be able to approve."

        So there was a practice in which Fred had to endorse

    the works before you would sign the quotation; am I

    correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And am I also correct to say that you wouldn't sign it

    unless Fred Wong gave his okay?

A.  Yes.

Q.  There are also instructions from Pauline Graham for you

    to monitor the cost.  If you look at the last sentence

    of that paragraph:

        "Given that quotations are in bits and pieces, I

    would caution you to make sure that they are properly

    monitored from a cost point of view."

        Do you see that?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So there were actually instructions from Pauline Graham

    to ask you to monitor the quotations on the costing?

A.  Yes.

MR TAN:  Thank you.

        His answer was yes, your Honour.

COURT:  Yes.

MR TAN:  Were you given instructions at any point in time to

    refer to Poole Associates for the quotations?

A.  No.

Q.  And you would sign the quotations without consulting

    Poole Associates; right?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Thank you.  So would I be correct to say that at no

    point did you all rely on Poole Associates for the

    pricing of the works?  You didn't refer to him, right?

A.  Well, because --

Q.  No, you can answer my question first.  At no point did

    you all rely on Poole Associates for the pricing of the

    quotation; yes?

A.  I would say yes.

MR TAN:  Thank you.

MR ONG:  Your Honour, I have no further questions.

COURT:  Thank you.

                Cross-examination by MR ONG

MR ONG:  May it please your Honour.

        Good afternoon, Mr Koh.  My name is Ong Ying Ping.

    I am counsel for Mason Works, the 2nd defendants in this

    case.

        Mr Koh, can I confirm with you that when you first

    approached Mr Fred Wong he was also being consulted

    because you wanted to see if micro-piling for the

    brewery was really necessary, wasn't it?

A.  I did not approach Fred Wong.

Q.  I mean, by the time Mr Shelley, I think, referred him to

    you -- once you had spoken to him, you wrote an email to

    the directors to say that Fred Wong could assist in

    reconsidering whether you need to do micro-piling; am

    I correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And that was sometime in late August 2006; correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Now, the meeting with Clarke Quay management, where the

    suggestion came up to split the brewery from the

    restaurant came up only in early September, wasn't it?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And the decision that you cannot avoid micro-piling was

    also around that time, wasn't it?  That you had to do

    micro-piling?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Mr Koh, let me now take you to the last paragraph of

    your affidavit at page 7, paragraph 22.

A.  Yes.

Q.  Is it your evidence that during the meeting on

    8 November 2006 -- this paragraph says:

        "William Graham then said that he only signed the

    quotation that Mason Works had brought and he would then

    refer the entire Pump Room project to Crispin Casimir

    for review.  William Graham then wrote the note agreeing

    that the project would be reviewed by Crispin Casimir on

    the quotation."

        So that's your evidence before this court?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Let me show you what Mr William Graham wrote.  It's

    found in his affidavit of evidence-in-chief at page 176

    and 177.

A.  Yes.

Q.  At 176 you see handwritten words on the bottom left-hand

    corner; right?

A.  Yes.

Q.  It says:

        "Amount to be reviewed and confirmed as reasonable

    by independent consultant (Crispin)."

        Do you have that?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Let's see the next line:

        "Same retention as main contract.  Otherwise,

    Crispin to recommend."

        Is that your reading?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Okay.  Mr Koh, you understand what "retention sum" is,

    right, because of this project?

A.  Yes, you could say that, yes.

Q.  So when you say "retention sum" you refer to the

    retention sum on this quotation only; right?

A.  I did not say same retention sum or whatever sum because

    this was not signed by me; this was attention to me but

    it's signed by --

Q.  That's not my question, Mr Koh.  Follow my question.

        You understand that each of the retention sums from

    Mason Works came in individual quotations, don't you?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Right.  So when you see "retention sum" on this

    quotation, then it must only mean this quotation, would

    it be correct?

A.  I cannot comment.  I cannot answer that question because

    I did not --

Q.  No, you see you are specially picking one special

    situation when I'm asking you in general first, whenever

    you see Mason Works retention sum, it goes for each

    particular quotation, right or wrong?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So, if you see "retention sum" again on this quotation,

    it should only mean this quotation, would that be

    correct?

        You see you're trying very hard to avoid my

    conclusion, because you already concluded in your mind

    that the whole project was to be reviewed, but I am only

    asking you as concerning retention sum, it must only

    mean this particular quotation, would that be correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Thank you.

        If you turn to the next page, it is the same

    quotation for the brewhouse, isn't it?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Let's look at the words at the bottom left-hand corner.

    Can you read it for us?

A.  "To be reviewed and approved as reasonable by qualified

    engineer".

Q.  "Crispin"?

A.  "Crispin".

Q.  That's different from what you saw on the other page,

    isn't it?  Can you read what Crispin's description there

    was?

A.  Crispin's description?

Q.  What are the words before "(Crispin)" in the earlier

    page?

A.  "Amount to be reviewed and confirmed as reasonable by

    independent consultant (Crispin)."

Q.  So in the earlier page it was "independent consultant"

    and on the later page "qualified engineer"?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So wouldn't I be correct to say that Mr William Graham

    made a mistake?

A.  Yes.

MR ONG:  No further questions, your Honour.

COURT:  Thank you.

                 Re-examination by MR VIJAY

MR VIJAY:  Yes, your Honour, just one.

        Do you know what is the retention sum in this whole

    project?

A.  The actual amount or the explanation of the word?

Q.  Is it based on amount or based on percentage?

A.  No.

Q.  Sorry?

A.  No.

Q.  You don't know.  Then how do you conclude that the

    retention sum there refers to that quotation only?

A.  This wasn't written by me.  It was attentioned to me,

    but my signature is not here, so I did not write all

    this, it's written by William Graham, so I wouldn't know

    what the retention sum is, the amount or whatever.

MR VIJAY:  I have no further questions.

COURT:  Thank you.  You are discharged.

                   (The witness withdrew)

MR VIJAY:  Can we take a break?

COURT:  Yes.

(3.49 pm)

                       (Short break)

(4.10 pm)

MR VIJAY:  May it please your Honour.  This is George Clark

    Martin, the first affidavit in bundle 2.

                GEORGE CLARK MARTIN (sworn)

              Examination-in-chief by MR VIJAY

MR VIJAY:  You are George Clark Martin?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Your address is 30C Saint Thomas Walk, Singapore,

    238111?

A.  Correct.

Q.  Your occupation.

A.  Company director.

Q.  I refer you to your affidavit of evidence-in-chief.  Do

    you confirm the contents to be true and correct?

A.  Correct.

MR VIJAY:  That's all, your Honour.

COURT:  Yes.  Who is cross-examining him?

MR SREENIVASAN:  Myself, your Honour.

            Cross-examination by MR SREENIVASAN

Q.  Mr Martin, insofar as an establishment like The Pump

    Room is concerned, it's quite different from a normal

    restaurant; am I right?

A.  In what way?

Q.  Let's take two restaurants that we may be familiar with,

    Mr Graham's two restaurants; Peony Jade, that is

    a straight restaurant; am I right?

A.  Yes, it's a Chinese restaurant, yes.

Q.  And then we've got Quayside Seafood, that's also quite

    different?

A.  Yes, it's more of an al fresco restaurant.

Q.  Then you've got those nightspots that are novel and

    happening, am I right, for example, China Jump?

A.  Yes.

Q.  You were involved in China Jump?

A.  Yes.

Q.  It was a very successful nightspot?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And the designer for China Jump was Mr Ed Poole; am I

    right?

A.  Yes, Ed Poole was a designer through his company

    Poole Associates, they managed the project.

Q.  Then, for this job, for The Pump Room, you recommended

    Ed Poole to be the designer; am I right?

A.  I recommended Ed Poole and his company to be the project

    managers and the designers, yes.

Q.  I'm not very careful about distinguishing between the

    two of them, because the suit against Ed Poole

    personally has already been discontinued, so there is no

    more case against Ed Poole himself.

A.  Okay.

Q.  So when I use the words "Ed Poole", we can use it as

    Ed Poole and Poole Associates, in terms of the design

    function.

        You have given an affidavit in this matter.  You are

    the most experienced member of the board of directors of

    The Pump Room when it comes to creating a nightspot as

    opposed to a restaurant; am I right?

A.  It depends who is deciding that.

Q.  No need to be modest.  You have China Jump under your

    belt.  Does anybody else have that kind of track record

    of nightspots that you have?

A.  On the current board, no.

Q.  Yesterday, Mr Graham told us that one of the reasons why

    Pump Room has become so successful is because of the

    band, Jive Talking, do you agree?

A.  They are an excellent band, yes.

Q.  Who chose the band?

A.  I did.

Q.  So if the band has contributed to the success of the

    Pump Room and you chose the band, you can take some

    credit for the success.

A.  Thank you.

Q.  No, can you?  That was not a rhetorical question.  I was

    seeking a "yes" or "no" from you.

A.  It depends on who is looking at it.

Q.  The next door pub to The Pump Room is The Highlander?

A.  Correct.

Q.  And you got Mason Works to do the work for The

    Highlander?

A.  Correct.

Q.  I was reading your affidavit very carefully and I looked

    at it; nowhere in your affidavit do you say that

    Ed Poole or Poole Associates were project managers; am I

    right?  Read it carefully?

A.  Say that again, sorry?

Q.  Look at your affidavit very carefully.  Nowhere in your

    affidavit do you say that Ed Poole or Poole Associates

    were project managers for The Pump Room; am I right?

    You don't say that in your affidavit?

A.  Correct.

Q.  You also nowhere in your affidavit say that Ed Poole or

    Poole Associates were responsible for costing or cost

    control for The Pump Room; am I right?

A.  In the affidavit, no, I don't say it, but in his

    contract, it was part of his contract, yes.

Q.  You got him involved in this job and you have been

    silent on this aspect in terms of your affidavit; am I

    right?

A.  I'm sorry, I don't understand.  How do you mean?

Q.  You got him involved in this job; am I right?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And in your affidavit you have been silent as to the

    scope of his duties?

A.  I think section 7, does it not say that?

Q.  In section 7 you described him as a designer; am I

    right?

A.  When someone has taken on --

Q.  Do you describe him a designer in section 7?

A.  He personally is a designer, yes, his company were in

    place to do the project.

Q.  Do you say that anywhere in your affidavit?

A.  Not as far as I'm aware, no.

Q.  In fact, the choice of Mason Works as a contractor arose

    from the meeting you had with Mr William Lee in April

    2006; am I right?

A.  I have difficulty remembering that meeting, but we had

    worked together in the past.

Q.  Let me refer you to the affidavit of William Lee.

A.  Sorry, which book is this in?

Q.  Sorry, Wan Yew Fai, not William Lee, I do apologise.

A.  Sorry, which page should I be looking at?

Q.  Can you look at page 4, paragraph 11, page 129.

A.  Yes, I have it.

Q.  In February 2006, Mr Wan Yew Fai says you visited

    Mason Works's office, and you spoke to him regarding

    wishing to operate a western-themed food and beverage

    establishment -- which establishment is this?

A.  This would be Highlander.

Q.  Shall we move on, to page 130:

        "Around June 2006, Mr Clark Martin contacted me and

    said that he and his business partners have secured four

    to five units of shophouses and have already engaged

    the 3rd defendant to be design consultant for the entire

    project, expected to be two separate outlets i.e. a pub

    eventually called Highlander and a brewery cum

    restaurant eventually called The Pump Room."

        Do you agree with what Mr Wan has said here?

A.  I certainly did visit their office, that is correct.

    Saying that I have four or five units of shophouses

    houses would be incorrect.  Definitely there was one

    secured for The Highlander.

Q.  Is it correct that you told him there would be two

    separate outlets?

A.  At that point I don't think it had been confirmed, but

    we were saying it probably would be two separate

    outlets.

Q.  Say again?

A.  We probably would be two doing separate outlets, but at

    that I don't think anything was confirmed --

Q.  June 2006, look at it carefully, nothing was confirmed

    yet?

A.  Sorry?

Q.  I am not trying to change your answer, I just want to

    get it clear.

A.  If it was June, yes.

Q.  Was it already confirmed?

A.  If it was June, I would think so, but, as I say, I can't

    remember, sorry, at the beginning it says "around June

    2006"?

Q.  Yes.

A.  I'm a bit vague on that date.

Q.  Okay.  Now, who recommended Mason Works for the work on

    The Pump Room?

A.  Mason Works were in place to do some demolition work at

    the site of The Highlander.

Q.  And then?

A.  And then, when The Pump Room project came along, then

    that was the point where there was some demolition work

    that was done and also Mason Works did it.

Q.  And then how did they end up as contractors for The Pump

    Room?  Because they were in place?

A.  They were doing work already at The Highlander, which is

    right next door.

Q.  And they had also worked with you for the Cafe Society

    project; am I right?

A.  Correct, yes.

Q.  Were you involved in negotiating the contract between

    The Pump Room and Ed Poole, or Poole Associates?

A.  Negotiating as in what?

Q.  Discussing the terms and conditions, discussing the

    pricing, scope of works.

A.  There was a review of the pricing, yes.

Q.  What about terms and conditions, were you involved?

A.  The terms and conditions are always standard in the

    Poole Associates contracts.

Q.  And the scope of work?

A.  It's always standard in the contract.

Q.  When you did China Jump, there were M&E works; am I

    right?

A.  Yes, but with China Jump that was so many years ago

    I might be a little bit vague in giving you clear

    answers on that.

Q.  But China Jump is at Chijmes?

A.  Correct, it was a Chijmes.

Q.  The old convent, it's a heritage building; am I right?

A.  It's an old convent, I don't know if it was heritage.

Q.  It's a conserved building?

A.  I would think so, yes.

Q.  You can't tear down walls and change the facade, am I

    right?

A.  I think there were some changes, major changes, because

    the actual Fountain Court where China Jump was didn't

    exist before.

Q.  For the M&E works that were done in China Jump, did you

    ask Ed Poole to review the costing?

A.  I can't remember, it was so long ago, but I would

    imagine so.

Q.  Think very carefully; did you ask Ed Poole to review the

    costing for M&E works?

A.  I would imagine so.  I really can't remember, it's so

    long ago.

Q.  Did you ask Ed Poole to put up timelines, project

    timelines?

A.  In most projects it's normal to get timelines, yes.

Q.  But my question wasn't that.  My question was; did you

    ask Poole Associates to put up timelines?

A.  Any architect or any design team who would be doing that

    would normally give you timelines.

Q.  Can we come back to my question; did you ask

    Poole Associates to give you timelines for China Jump?

A.  As I said, it's so long ago, I can't remember exactly.

Q.  Because my instructions are that Poole Associates did

    not give timelines for China Jump -- do you agree or you

    can't remember?

A.  I can't remember.

Q.  Let's go to Cafe Society.  That is a bit more recent,

    isn't it?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Do you have timelines from Poole Associates for Cafe

    Society?

A.  As far as I remember, yes.

Q.  Can you produce those timelines and come back tomorrow

    and show it to us?

A.  Probably not, no.

Q.  What happened to all the paperwork for Cafe Society?

A.  The gentleman that was in charge of the company, the

    major shareholder, left Singapore, and his office, where

    everything was kept for all the companies was -- I guess

    you would call it closed down, so he left in quite

    a hurry, so nothing was --

Q.  He left in quite a hurry.

        I'm putting it to you that the reason that you have

    never referred to Poole Associates or Ed Poole

    as project manager or involved in controlling costing

    anywhere in your affidavit is because the reason is that

    Ed Poole was not the project manager; you have been

    honest in your affidavit by being very silent, by

    refusing to call him project manager, because he wasn't;

    do you agree?

A.  Sorry, I disagree.

Q.  Do you agree that Ed Poole being a project manager is an

    important part of the plaintiff's case?

A.  What does that mean?

Q.  It's an important part of The Pump Room's case; you

    can't win against Poole Associates, unless they were the

    project manager?

A.  In all the jobs that we have done in the past --

Q.  No, hang on, my question, do you agree that it is an

    important part of the plaintiff's case that

    Poole Associates were project manager -- "yes", "no",

    "I don't know"?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And if it's an important part of the plaintiff's case,

    it is something you would have cast your mind to; am I

    right?

A.  It's something that is part of the contract.

Q.  No, hang on.  If it's an important part of the

    plaintiff's case, it's something you would have cast

    your mind to, it would have been at the forefront of

    your mind; am I right?

A.  It's clearly stated here in my affidavit that Ed Poole

    was -- in section number 7, I recommended Ed Poole for

    the job.

Q.  Yes, let's look at section number 7:

        "I recommended Ed Poole to be the designer."

        Let's look at section number 8, when you complain

    about various things about Ed Poole.  Let's look at

    section number 9, when you complain about Ed Poole.

    Let's look at section number 10, when you complain about

    Ed Poole.

        Do you describe him as project manager in any of

    these sections?

A.  In the sections, it's not mentioned, the term project

    manager --

Q.  Anywhere in the affidavit?

A.  It's part of the designer's scope of works.

Q.  Do you say that in your affidavit?

A.  I haven't said it, but it's normal practice.

Q.  Mr Martin, I'm suggesting to you that you were silent

    because you knew that Ed Poole was not the project

    manager for the entire project, and you have now made

    that assertion because you know that it's an important

    part of the plaintiff's case -- I repeat that.

        When you wrote this, you were telling the truth, now

    you are adding in the allegation to help the plaintiff's

    case -- do you agree or disagree?

A.  I disagree.

Q.  Do you agree that if Ed Poole was the project manager --

    maybe we ought to get it straight -- when you say he is

    the project manager also for the structural and also for

    the M&E works, is that what you are saying?

A.  He was the overall project manager.

Q.  Includes the structural and M&E works?

A.  I would think so.  I'm not qualified to say that.  He

    was the project manager for the design, the whole

    concept.  It's like -- may I make an example?

Q.  Yes, please do.

A.  We're working on another job at the moment and the

    architect/designer, their contract also has them in as

    project manager, and it seems to be pretty standard in

    the jobs that have been in the past with

    Poole Associates there hadn't been issues with them, so

    with project manager, they project managed, so they help

    adhere to costs, even with The Highlander, this is the

    same, we adhered to costs.

Q.  And in this particular case for The Pump Room do you

    agree that Mr Poole and Poole Associates looked

    carefully at the cost of the architectural finishes?

A.  The reason we're probably sitting here today is no.

Q.  Do you agree that architectural finishes -- do you

    understand what that is?

A.  What do you mean by that?

Q.  The tiles, the wall finishing, the accessories, the

    lights -- do you agree that Poole Associates looked at

    those costs very carefully?

A.  They certainly reviewed the costs on these.

Q.  Do you agree that they reviewed the cost of the

    furniture, the custom-made furniture that came from

    Bali --

A.  Yes.

Q.  -- very carefully?

A.  I can't say very carefully, but, yes, they reviewed it.

Q.  Are you aware that, insofar as the items in the first

    quotation of 8 September are concerned, the plaintiff's

    expert has said that the figure is fair?

A.  Sorry, can you explain that again?

Q.  Do you know there was a quotation of 8 September by

    Mason Works?

A.  Should I look at it?

Q.  No, do you know?  If you say you don't, I won't even

    bother you?

A.  I am sure there were different quotations --

COURT:  Do you know about this quotation?  I know there were

    many quotations.  Please answer the question.

A.  Off the top of my head, I would need to see it to say

    did I see it.

MR SREENIVASAN:  As a director, did you review the

    quotations.

A.  I didn't get to see them all.

Q.  Did Mr Graham show you the quotations -- some but not

    all?

A.  Again, I can't answer that without seeing them.

Q.  No, did he show you any quotations?

A.  Probably, I saw some, but there were certainly some that

    maybe, as the project got later, I was getting more

    heavily involved in The Highlander, so maybe I didn't

    see all quotations.

Q.  Now let's look at the first quotation.

A.  Where do I find this?

Q.  I'm giving you the reference, hold on.  Can you look at

    Mr Poole's affidavit.  It is page 54 -- have you got it?

A.  Almost -- okay, I see.

Q.  Page 54, in the bottom right corner, do you see W Graham

    signing it on 12/9/2006?  Got it?

A.  Yes.

Q.  The quotation goes on from page 55.  Ignore the date

    10 September, but it goes on from page 55 right up to

    page 67.

A.  Okay, I see that.

Q.  Have you seen this quotation at that time, not for the

    purposes of the trial?  "Yes", "no" or "I can't

    remember"?

A.  I can't remember.

MR SREENIVASAN:  No further questions, your Honour.

COURT:  Thank you.

MR ONG:  No questions, your Honour.

MR VIJAY:  No re-examination.

COURT:  Right.  You are discharged.  At this stage shall we

    take stock?

                   (The witness withdrew)

MR SREENIVASAN:  Perhaps we will start tomorrow morning.

COURT:  I will see you all in chambers.

(4.34 pm)

         (The hearing adjourned until 11.00 am on

                Wednesday, 5 November 2008)

 

 

 

2013 thepumproom.com | Contact

 

 

StatCounter - Free Web Tracker and Counter  

home