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 5

 

Wednesday, 5 November 2008

(11.04 am)

                PAULINE HAN LIN JEE (sworn)

              Examination-in-chief by MR VIJAY

      MR VIJAY:  May it please your Honour, the next witness is

          Pauline Han Lin Jee.

      Q.  You are Pauline Han Lin Jee, correct?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Can you state your residential address, please?

      A.  237 Arcadia Road, Unit 0504 The Arcadia, District

          289844.

     Q.  Occupation?

     A.  Director.

     Q.  Can I refer you to your affidavit of evidence-in-chief.

          Have you got that?

     A.  Yes, sir.

     Q.  Do you confirm the contents to be true and correct?

     A.  Yes, sir.

      MR VIJAY:  May it please your Honour.

                Cross-examination by MR TAN

      MR TAN:  May I call you Mrs Graham instead of Madam Han.

      A.  Mrs Graham sounds good.

      Q.  Okay.  My name is Eugene Tan.  I'm counsel for

          Poole Associates and I will be taking you through

          cross-examination.

11:10         Ms Graham, yesterday your husband described you as

          a prudent person; would you agree with his assessment?

      A.  I beg your pardon, what did you say?

      Q.  Your husband described you as prudent person yesterday

          during his evidence; would you agree with his

          assessment?

      A.  I don't know in what context he's saying, but I'm his

          right-hand man.

      Q.  But would you consider yourself prudent, careful?

      A.  Sorry, I didn't get the sentence.  Would I consider

          myself as ...?

      Q.  As a careful person?

      A.  Yes, I am.

      Q.  And this prudence, it extends to money matters?

      A.  It does.

      Q.  I understand from your evidence, Mrs Graham, that you

          came in the project sometime in August 2006?

      A.  That's correct.

      Q.  And that was to assist your husband Mr William Graham --

      A.  That's correct.

      Q.  -- in running the project?

      A.  That's correct.

      Q.  One of the problems that you had was that you were

          receiving many quotations from the 2nd defendant,

          Mason Works; am I right?

11:11 A.  That's correct.

      Q.  And these quotations were subsequent to the main

          contract that your husband signed with Mason Works, the

          main contract being the one for 474,000?

      A.  I don't know the amount but I know that there was

          a contract.

      Q.  And after that contract was signed, you continued

          receiving many quotations from Mason Works?

      A.  Yes, in bits and pieces, yes.

      Q.  In bits and pieces?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And these quotations were for mechanical and electrical

          works?

      A.  I cannot totally recall but I know there were a lot of

          invoices sent to me to endorse for payment.

      Q.  Quotations?

      A.  Invoices.

      Q.  I'm talking about quotations right now.

      A.  Right.

      Q.  So before invoices are issued and before works actually

          commence, you would be receiving quotations from the

          2nd defendants; yes?

      A.  To be very honest, quotations and invoices, to me at

          that particular time everything was a jumble to me.  I

          see it as piece of paper and where it is money concerned

11:12     then I would look into it.

      Q.  But would you agree with me that, generally, before

          Mason Works began any works they would give you

          a quotation setting out what the price and the scope of

          works were?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And only after The Pump Room had accepted these

          quotations would Mason Works begin the works?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  As you have said, you were getting these quotations in

          dribs and drabs?

      A.  Mmm.

      Q.  And being a prudent person, you instituted a system to

          deal with these quotations, didn't you?

      A.  I did.

      Q.  And the purpose of this system was to ensure that cost

          was properly incurred; am I correct to say that?

      A.  Yes, for as long as the invoice that I'm asked to pay

          tallies with the major contract, which means -- let me

          clarify -- if an invoice is given to me for ten items

          costing 20,000 dollars, I need to know that this 20,000

          dollars and the ten items are actually already listed in

          the quotations in the first contract, so that there's no

          duplicate.

      Q.  Okay, I just need to differentiate, or I need to make

11:14     clear the difference between a quotation and an invoice,

          Mrs Graham.

      A.  Okay.

      Q.  The quotation could be for works that were not covered

          already in the main contract, isn't it?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And the purpose of this system that you had was to make

          sure that these quotations that The Pump Room was going

          to sign, that the cost was being properly incurred,

          meaning, if I can just explain, that the works were not

          already duplicated in the earlier contract?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  And the other thing also that would be checked for was

          that cost was being monitored in these quotations; am I

          right to say that?

      A.  This was costs, yes.

      Q.  So you would check the pricing in the quotations as

          well?

      A.  Against the quotation.

      Q.  Now, in your system I understand that you gave these

          quotations to Fred Wong and Shaharin to review the

          quotations before they were signed?

      A.  I did.

      Q.  And only if Fred Wong had signed and endorsed on the

          quotation would Shaharin or The Pump Room accept these

11:15     quotations; am I correct?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Can I just check with you, Mrs Graham, that before

          signing these quotations, did you instruct either

          Shaharin or Fred to check with Poole Associates?

      A.  No.

      Q.  So, in other words, feedback and advice regarding the

          quotations were never sought from Poole Associates?

      A.  No, because all the invoices come directly from

          Mason Works to me.

      Q.  Sorry, you said invoices.

      A.  Quotations, invoice, all come directly to us.

      Q.  Would I therefore be correct to say that you never

          relied on Poole Associates to check the quotations and

          the invoices?

      A.  Correct.

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

                      Cross-examination by MR ONG

      MR ONG:  Good morning, Mrs Graham.  My name is Ong Ying Ping

          and I am counsel for Mason Works, the 2nd defendants in

          this action.

              I will just follow up Mr Tan's questions with regard

          to the process of accepting quotations and paying for

          the invoices.

      A.  Okay.

11:17 Q.  Can I confirm with you, the sequence is like this: you

          receive Mason Works' quotation.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Then the next step is you ask Fred or Shaharin to check

          the quotation, is that correct?

      A.  Against the contract, yes.

      Q.  So they check it, and then if they tell you it's all

          right --

      A.  Then we pay.

      Q.  You pay only after the invoice?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  So the next step is that you accept the invoice, you

          approve the invoice -- I mean the quotation.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  You approve the quotation.  And after that when the

          works are being carried out they send you an invoice;

          would that be correct?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Then Fred and Shaharin check the invoice?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Then they tell you if it's okay to pay?

      A.  That's correct.

      Q.  Then you pay?

      A.  That's correct.

      Q.  So would you consider that a review process?

11:18 A.  No.  I consider that, from a business cost point of

          view, I have to make sure that whatever we are invoiced

          for has actually been already included in the contract

          and not something which is extra.

      Q.  Okay, I understand.  So would you call it a checking

          process?

      A.  It is internal checking process, yes.

      Q.  That's good.  Then I only have to take you through one

          other item.  Could you turn to a slim bundle called

          volume 2, 2nd defendant's bundle of documents, at page

          425.  It's actually 425 to 426.

      A.  This book has no 425.

      Q.  If you look at the top right-hand corner --

      A.  Yes, 425.

      Q.  These are emails from Fred Wong to William Lee.  I think

          the first in this chain of emails starts on the next

          page at page 426.  You see the notation on top "Original

          message from Fred at CS Racing".  Do you see that?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  So the date when the email was sent by Fred Wong was

          Friday January 26, 2007; right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  So the email actually was issued by Fred asking to

          arrange a meeting with Mr William Lee together with the

          directors.  That would be yourself and Mr Graham.  Would

11:20     that be correct?

      A.  At that time, I was a director already, yes.

      Q.  So he was asking for a meeting where the main agenda

          will be -- if you look at items number 1 and 2, page 426

          of the email, there are only two items to discuss at the

          meeting, which will be number 1, handover and

          commissioning of the project deliverables.  Is that

          correct?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And then the next item, "Costing and payment"?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  That's what you did during the checking process we

          discussed?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  So eventually the meeting was then fixed on -- if you go

          back to 425, the meeting was fixed on Saturday,

          3 February 2007 at 10.00 am at the Pump Room; right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  So I'm just asking you to cast your mind back to that

          day.  Around that time in January 2007 Mason Works have

          completed their works, haven't they?

      A.  Except for brewery.

      Q.  No, the brewery was also handed over, I think.  It was

          handed to you by 21 December 2006?

      A.  Okay, let me just explain.  Even though I was a director

11:21     at that time, as you can see from my affidavit when

          I first started I did not get involved at all until

          March, August.  So when I became involved there were

          a lot of meetings that I don't sit in.  I don't sit in a

          lot of meetings.  I have two other restaurants to run,

          so I don't sit in most of the meetings.  So I cannot

          recall whether I sat in this meeting.  I cannot recall;

          I honestly cannot recall.

      Q.  Yesterday, he --

      A.  He didn't say that, okay.

      Q.  He didn't say that -- you and Mr Graham were --

      A.  Okay.

      Q.  So by the time you were at that meeting, the project was

          completed, wasn't it?

      A.  Yeah, okay.  Yeah, we were up and running, yes.

      Q.  And Mr Crispin's review of Mason Works' pricing was

          supposed to have started after the project completed,

          wasn't it?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And is it true that you didn't ask Mr Crispin to attend

          this meeting?

      A.  I have -- I am not involved in Crispin's appointment.

          I have never met Crispin at that particular time,

          I don't know who Crispin was; it was a name that I hear.

          But can I refer you to my affidavit?  Is that possible?

11:23 Q.  Sure.

      A.  In my affidavit on page 10 --

      Q.  I don't think there is a page 10 in your affidavit.

          Paragraph 17.

      A.  There is a 10 here -- exhibit 10, sorry.

      Q.  Okay.  The exhibit at page 10?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Okay, I see it.

      A.  Do you have that?  If you see that in there, I was

          promised that there were costs that -- Mr Poole was

          going to help me to look into costs, but because I don't

          see them, they are all in bits and pieces, there was no

          way I could follow the trends of the invoices.  And

          Mr Poole had assured me on 7 November, "After the piling

          is started and William is bit more free, we can go over

          those items and list them out".  I don't recall there

          was a meeting because after that on 8 November, that's

          when my husband appointed an independent party to assess

          the cost.

      Q.  I guess -- I understand what you are saying.  So on my

          part I just want to confirm that on that meeting on

          3 February?

      A.  January.

      Q.  3 February.

      A.  Yes.

11:24 Q.  No one asked Mr Crispin to attend that meeting?

      A.  I cannot remember whether I attended the meeting so

          I cannot answer that question, I am sorry.

      MR ONG:  Okay.

              I have no further questions, your Honour.

      COURT:  Thank you.  Any re-examination?

                       Re-examination by MR VIJAY

      MR VIJAY:  May it please your Honour.

              You see, you said that you did not ask Shaharin or

          Fred to refer the quotations to Ed Poole; right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Then at the end of your evidence just now you said that

          on 7 November 2006 you asked Ed Poole to assure or look

          whether you were actually saving cost?

      A.  Right.

      Q.  Could you clarify, first, why was it not referred to

          Ed Poole?

      A.  If you look at my affidavit, exhibit 16, you will see

          that -- sorry, I beg your pardon, exhibit 17.

      Q.  Which page?

      A.  Exhibit 17.

      Q.  Refer to it as page 17, please.

      A.  Sorry.  There was an email from William Lee to me, dated

          9 October.  It was a copy, just straight to me, asking

          for money.  "With reference to the above subject and the

11:26     invoice handed to you on our previous meeting, may

          I know when will the cheque be ready for collection?"

              It wasn't copied to Edward Poole.  So by the same

          token, when I do my instruction to Shaharin and Fred,

          I never thought I should also copy Ed Poole.  It was an

          internal admin thing that I was doing, and I had

          responded very quickly to William's request.  If you see

          that he has written to me at 2.04 pm; I responded to him

          very quickly at 3.04, as soon as I had the invoice and

          as soon as I had the email, I responded very quickly.

          So I did not think that I should copy Edward.  I would

          expect him to be already copied by Mason Works.

      Q.  Can you repeat the last part, please?  I missed it.

          What was the last sentence?

      A.  I would expect him to be already copied by Mason Works,

          or be aware.

      Q.  And why is that so?

      A.  Because the email from William to me chasing for payment

          wasn't copied to Edward Poole, so by the same token,

          when I do my admin work I do the same: I will straight

          back to whoever is being copied; I'll do the same

          copying.

      MR VIJAY:  I have no other questions.

      COURT:  Thank you, you are discharged.

              Who is next?

11:27                    (The witness withdrew)

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, we have no other witnesses at

          present, unless Chris Shelley comes later.

      COURT:  All right.

              The defence.

      MR TAN:  Your Honour, would you require me to go through our

          opening statement?

      COURT:  No, assume it is read.

      MR TAN:  Your Honour, the 1st defendants call the next

          witness, Mr Edward Poole.  He is the first and only

          witness, actually.

                       EDWARD DAVID POOLE (sworn)

                     Examination-in-chief by MR TAN

      MR TAN:  Mr Poole, can you look for your affidavit of

          evidence-in-chief?  It's the one titled "1st defendant's

          affidavit of evidence-in-chief, just to be clear.  Can

          you just look through its contents and confirm that it's

          your affidavit?

      A.  Yes, it is.

      Q.  Is there anything that you wish to amend in your

          affidavit?

      A.  No.

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

                     Cross-examination by MR VIJAY

      MR VIJAY:  Would you agree that around May/June/July and

11:29     perhaps even August 2006 you were liaising with

          Clark Martin rather than Bill Graham?

      A.  The very -- the first few -- well, yes, the earlier

          months were mostly with Clark Martin and later I was

          introduced to Bill Graham.

      Q.  Would you agree that Bill Graham was away with his

          family on holiday from 21 July to 21 August 2006?

      A.  No, I'm not aware of that, that Bill Graham was away on

          holiday.

      Q.  Yes.

      A.  No, I had no idea.

      Q.  You were in Langkawi, right, from 18th to 21st, correct?

          I am taking it from your passport.

      A.  I'm sorry, but I travel a lot.  Unless I have the dates

          in front of me and maybe a copy of the listing there's

          no way I can remember where I was on what date.

      Q.  Could I refer you to the 3rd defendant's bundle of

          documents instead?

      A.  Okay.

      Q.  Your copy of your passport is there.

      A.  Okay -- the listing is -- can you refer me to what page?

      Q.  I don't know the page, but 18th to 21st in Langkawi.

      A.  It doesn't have a listing of what days I was travelling

          where.  There is an extensive list of the travel dates

          to different countries.  I would have to look at the

11:31     dates and understand where I was, what I was doing,

          because some of them involved attending to issues on

          this project and some of them did not.

      Q.  Yes.  Look through your passport.  It's your passport.

      A.  Can you refer me to the page?

      Q.  Look at page 9.

      A.  Okay.

      Q.  17, 19, 20, 25, 28.  That's April, I'm sorry.

      A.  Can you repeat the question?

      Q.  Correct?

      A.  Can you repeat the question?

      Q.  I said you were in Langkawi from 18th to 21st of July

          2006?

      A.  Yes, I was.

      Q.  Thank you.  And you were in Maldives from 27th to 31st?

      A.  Yes, on page 10, yes.

      Q.  I am told that Bill Graham and family were on leave on

          holiday from 21 July to 22 August.  I have the passports

          here and I can get you the travel documents if need be,

          but are you seriously challenging this?  Then I will

          bring in --

      A.  I can't verify whether or not Bill Graham was out of the

          country.  I have no idea.

      Q.  Fair enough.  I'm suggesting to you that Bill Graham was

          not there in July in Singapore?

11:33 A.  I don't know.

      Q.  You can't answer that; fair enough.  We'll come back.

              You see, now, can I refer you to your defence, which

          is on page 33 of the setting down bundle?

      A.  Page 33?

      Q.  Page 33 -- have you got that?  That's your defence?

      A.  The second bundle, this one?

      Q.  Sorry, this one, setting down bundle, pleadings.

      COURT:  Why don't you just tell him, instead of looking

          through all the papers, what is it that you want to ask

          him?

      A.  I don't know what you are asking him.

      COURT:  Do you need to refer to it?

      MR VIJAY:  Okay, your Honour.

      COURT:  You are spending a lot of time looking for documents

          and in the end the question does not require that the

          witness examine the documents.

      MR VIJAY:  It is a long paragraph.  I will just read the

          relevant paragraph.

              Now, you say in your alternative that the

          appointment -- your contract on 1st July 2006 was varied

          by way of an oral agreement and you say that this oral

          agreement was around late July 2006 between you and

          William Graham --

      A.  Wait.  Which ...?

11:35 Q.  -- to exclude project management.  This is the

          alternative defence, page 33.

      A.  Paragraph 4?

      Q.  Yes.  Right?

      A.  Yes -- well, it was at around late July.  I am not

          exactly sure of the exact date because there were many

          meetings going on, but there was an oral agreement that

          Bill Graham expected me to project manager the entire

          job, and I told him that's not --

      Q.  When you said "late July" what date are you referring

          to?

      A.  I don't remember.  There were many meetings going on.

          Sometimes we met every other day.

      Q.  You said late July.  Could it be the last week of July?

          Are you referring to the last week of July?

      A.  Well, it can't be the last days of July because I was

          overseas.  I don't remember what day it was.  I don't

          remember exactly what date.

      Q.  And it was an oral agreement?

      A.  Yeah, I remember there was a meeting in Peony Jade

          sitting around the private dining room table with all

          the parties involved, and Bill Graham wanted me to do

          project management for the entire job, and I told him,

          "No, I am handing over two major hotels, coming up, that

          were worth nearly 100 million dollars" and I was going

11:37     to be traveling a lot.  I said, "My scope of services

          never includes project management of an entire job."

          I have never done project management for an entire

          project.  My project management involves my scope of

          works only.

      Q.  You are saying a lot of things which I'm hearing for the

          first time and it is not in your affidavit.  Right.  All

          these things you are saying now is never in your

          affidavit; am I right?  Can you show me in the affidavit

          where you have mentioned this?

      A.  No, I did not mention that meeting.

      Q.  Yes, you have never mentioned that prior to this moment;

          correct?

      A.  Correct, because my contract(?) does not include --

      Q.  Yes, and you have also not mentioned all this in any of

          your emails; am I right?

      A.  Because it was never in question that I wasn't project

          manager.

      Q.  No, answer my question, please.  You never wrote any

          email to say, "I am no longer going to be a project

          manager; I never been one", et cetera?

      A.  This is an oral agreement before the contract was

          signed.

      Q.  Yes.

      A.  Before the contract was signed.

11:38 Q.  Mr Poole, you said "end of July 2006".  Your contract

          was dated 1 July 2006.  How can you be -- before you

          contract?

      A.  (unclear -- simultaneous speakers).  Fair enough, yeah.

      Q.  Now, Mr Poole, am I right to say that you never put in

          a letter or email to confirm what you just said; right?

      A.  No, I did not.

      Q.  Yes.  Didn't you think it was important enough to be put

          in writing?

      A.  It was already in writing in my contract.

      Q.  It was already in writing in your contract?

      A.  Yes, that I don't do --

      Q.  Which contract?

      A.  My contract that Bill Graham signed, because it states

          that I project manage only the interior scope of my

          work.  It never says the whole project.  Why would

          I project manager a brewery which I know nothing about?

      Q.  Exactly, but you signed a contract to say you will and

          you collected money for that; right?

      A.  No.  I signed -- he signed a contract and I signed

          a contract that stated I would project manage the

          interior architectural scope of the project.  The title

          of the document is, "Proposal for interior architectural

          services".  It does not say project management of an

          entire job.

11:39 Q.  Have you finished?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Let me go back to my question.  The last question,

          saying that you never put in writing or in the email,

          correct, to that you said yes.  Okay.

              Now, next question, didn't you think it was

          important enough to put it in writing?

      A.  No, because it was a discussion at a table with all the

          parties involved.  It was understood.  It was

          understood.

      Q.  Now you are talking about a discussion at a meeting

          where this was decided?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  In your affidavit you say it was a meeting between you

          and --

      A.  I said (unclear -- simultaneous speakers).

      Q.  Which is it, now?

      A.  I said everybody involved in the project was there.

          (unclear -- simultaneous speakers) Peony Jade around the

          dining table.  There were all the parties involved up to

          that point.  RSP most likely, I think, wasn't there.

      Q.  Mr Graham --

      A.  There was no need, if in the course of the entire

          project have I ever been referred to as project manager?

      Q.  We'll come to that.

11:40 A.  Never.  It's only (unclear -- simultaneous speakers) the

          project opened.

      Q.  Please answer my question first.  In your case and in

          your pleadings you say -- or you didn't say in the

          affidavit; in your pleadings you say it was

          a conversation between you and Bill Graham.  Now you say

          it was a discussion at Peony Jade with so many people

          present.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Which is it?

      A.  Everybody was present, but of course Bill Graham is the

          authority, so that was directed to him.

      Q.  Mr Poole, this stated in page 33 of your pleadings is

          wrong; right?  If --

      A.  No, I think it's correct.

      Q.  Why?

      A.  I can't tell you the exact date in July, sometime around

          the end of July.

      Q.  Mr Poole, your pleading specifically says between you

          and Bill Graham.  It never spoke about a discussion or

          a meeting with others present.  Mr Poole, when are

          lying?  Are you lying now or when you instructed your

          lawyers to put this in writing?

      A.  I haven't lied.

      Q.  Mr Poole, you have been in this business for 16 years;

11:41     am I right?

      A.  No, about 26 years.

      Q.  Now it's 26 years?

      A.  Yes, I practiced architecture in Australia and USA

          before coming to Singapore.

      Q.  Okay.  I'm talking about Singapore alone.

      A.  Yes, 18 years.

      Q.  16 years?

      A.  Now, since then, 18 years, okay.

      Q.  And in these 18 years, you sort of boasted in one of

          your emails that you had gone to court 32 times; is that

          correct?

      A.  I think it was actually 36 times.

      Q.  Oops, I am sorry.  And you sued all your customers,

          I suppose.

      A.  They were all in reference to small claims tribunal and

          normally for actions to collect the last 10 per cent of

          the project, in probably 99 per cent of those cases.

      Q.  Thank you.  Having had 36 cases or may be 32 at that

          point of time in July 2006, didn't it occur to you that

          it was important to put that meeting in writing,

          Mr Poole?

      A.  How would I know that -- that his wrong assumption would

          ever come up to something of this nature, because it was

          never brought up anywhere during the rest of the course

11:42     of the project?  He never accused me of not acting or as

          being negligent as a project manager until a letter that

          I got from him, I believe in March of 2007, three months

          after the project was opened.  Then he states that I was

          negligent as a project manager.  Well, where did that

          come from?  I was never the project manager from day 1.

      Q.  Mr Poole, you would have put in writing, if there was

          really such a meeting or discussion -- I don't which is

          it now.

      COURT:  I think you have extracted enough.  Let's move on.

      MR VIJAY:  Okay.

              In any event, you are saying that this was in July

          2006, end of July 2006?

      A.  Yes, correct, correct.

      Q.  Okay, and you also saying that -- are you saying that

          you -- now I don't know what you're saying.  So let me

          first clarify what you are saying.  Let me refer you to

          Fred Wong.

      A.  Okay.

      Q.  Is it your case that Fred Wong took over as project

          manager?

      A.  When he came in at another subsequent meeting he was

          introduced at the table, again with all the parties

          involved, in the same room, I don't remember which day,

          he was introduced as "Project manager, Fred Wong".

11:44 Q.  Can I refer you back to your pleadings, paragraph 33?

          Late July 2006, oral agreement between plaintiffs Graham

          and 3rd defendant to have Fred Wong project manage the

          project?

      A.  Mm-hmm.

      Q.  Would that be correct?

      A.  Yes, that's correct.

      Q.  So it is not a meeting or a discussion at a table and

          all that; right?  I don't know about tables; correct?

          Which one is it now?  Is it a meeting where -- end

          of July 2006?

      A.  After the meeting happened where there was a -- where

          I expressly told Bill Graham I was not going to be

          a project manager for the entire scope; later,

          at another meeting, Fred Wong was brought in and then

          introduced as a project manager.

      Q.  It says here categorically that in late July Fred Wong

          was appointed as project manager; correct?  Can you read

          that (unclear -- simultaneous speakers)?

      A.  Well, It's not clear.  That didn't happen until August.

      Q.  Sorry?

      A.  That didn't happen until August.  Fred Wong was

          appointed in August.

      Q.  I am reading your alternative defence here.  Look.  You

          are correcting your case?

11:45 A.  I'm filling in some more clarifying details.

      Q.  Okay, so you know what I'm going to ask you next.  It is

          obvious you are lying here.  It is obviously a lie that

          Fred Wong was discussed, appointed, as project

          manager --

      A.  No, it wasn't.  He has a contract that says he was

          project manager.

      Q.  -- at the end of July 2006.  Correct?

      A.  He was brought in -- well, we know from the evidence

          that he signed a contract in August.

      Q.  So you are changing your evidence now to suit that?

      A.  No.  No, I am not.

      Q.  You said here it was end of July 2006?

      A.  That's referring to the first meeting that -- the

          meeting that preceded that, where there was -- I told

          Bill that I wouldn't do project management for the

          entire job.

      Q.  I will come to that.  Here -- so is it correct or not

          correct that end of July Fred Wong comes in as project

          manager, "yes" or "no"?

      A.  It could have been at the meeting before the contract

          was signed, I don't know.  It could have been.  Maybe he

          was at that time meeting.  I can't recall.  It could

          have been he was at the meeting and then maybe he was

          actually formally introduced later on after his contract

11:46     was signed.  I don't know.  He could have been

          introduced at the table before his contract was signed.

          I don't know.  I never saw his contract until --

      Q.  Fred Wong was never in sight in July 2006 at all; right?

      A.  I can't guarantee -- I have no idea of that.  I don't

          know.  I don't know.

      Q.  You don't know?

      A.  He could have been in the client's office.  I don't know

          where he was -- when he came on board.

      Q.  You don't know when he came on board?

      A.  I don't know the exact dates when he was contacted at

          first; I have no idea.

      Q.  But you said that he took over -- you said here -- your

          exact words --

      COURT:  You can't both be talking at the same time.  The

          court recorder cannot cope.

      MR TAN:  Your Honour, perhaps let me facilitate this

          process.

      MR VIJAY:  No, I don't think so, we have nothing here to

          talk about, Eugene.

      MR TAN:  No, I am going to ask Mr Poole to wait for Mr Vijay

          to finish his question and then just answer his question

          and we can move on.

      MR VIJAY:  Okay, so can I refer you -- if I tell you Fred

          Wong was appointed on 21 August 2006; correct --

11:48 A.  Yes.

      Q.  -- would you accept that?

      A.  I believe so, yes.

      Q.  So are you saying that you were a project manager until

          Fred was appointed on 23 August?  Is that the case?

      A.  No, I was never --

      Q.  You were never the project manager --

      A.  No.  We have to be clear: not of the entire project.

      Q.  Right.

      A.  Only when I entered a contract with Bill Graham I became

          project manager of the interior design scope.

      Q.  If you look at Fred Wong's contract, which is on page

          132 to 134 of your affidavit --

      A.  What bundle?

      Q.  Your own affidavit of evidence-in-chief.

      A.  My affidavit -- no -- it's in my affidavit?

      Q.  You didn't know it was there?

      A.  Yes.  Yes, sorry.  Yes, okay.

      Q.  Looking at this contract between C&P and the plaintiffs,

          do you agree that it is different from your contract

          with The Pump Room?

      A.  Yes, of course it's different.

      Q.  It says here, and I take you to page 134, he was paid

          10,000 dollars; with GST, 10,500.

      A.  Okay.

11:50 Q.  But yours was of course negotiated down to 68,000.

              Let me go back to your appointment.  Before I go to

          your contract, let's talk about what happened before

          1 July.  Were you not on board sometime in the first

          week of May 2006?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Were you not helping them on the project right from --

      A.  I was in discussion with them but I was not on board.

          "On board", meaning entering into a contract?  That's

          what I would assume "on board" means.

      Q.  Right.

      A.  No, I was not on board in May.

      Q.  Let me go through all those things that you did.  On

          22 May you handed over a plan to Clark; would that be

          correct?  You did a drawing.  I refresh your memory for

          you.

      A.  Yes, yes.

      Q.  On the 20th you flew off to Maldives and then you

          arranged for a plan of the whole project to be given to

          them; correct?

      A.  Mm-hmm.

      Q.  With two alternatives; am I right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  That was 22 May 2006?

      A.  Correct.

11:51 Q.  So haven't you done substantial work by then, 22nd?

      A.  No.

      Q.  No?

      A.  No.

      Q.  You have laid out the plan, you have laid out where the

          things should go --

      A.  No.  We were briefed that it was going to be kind of

          like a resurrection of China Jump.  So of course we had

          done that project many years before for Clark Martin.

          We had the landlords's basic layout plan, which showed

          the outline.  So that's entered into a computer in

          a matter of 15 minutes.  Then we take all the existing

          bar from China Jump, furniture layouts and whatnot and

          snap it into the plan.  It's not a lot of work.  It was

          a very small amount of work.

      Q.  Okay, but did you some work; right?

      A.  Yes, because it helps people to understand when they can

          see the actual scale of furniture within the room.

      Q.  And at the end of May -- I can refer you to documents if

          you need to -- 29 May 2006, you are already contacting

          Steve Carroll in Indonesia to order items --

      A.  Mm-hmm.

      Q.  -- for The Pump Room.

      A.  Mm-hmm, yes.

      Q.  Would that be correct?

11:53 A.  Yes, correct.

      Q.  How is it that you are ordering materials for The Pump

          Room when you say you are not on board?

      A.  Contacting Steve Carroll had nothing to do with placing

          orders.  The issue is, when we talked about the design

          style of the project, which -- my company is usually

          hired to create unique imagery for the clients that we

          work for.  The concept being a brewhouse, and the type

          of food that they wanted to serve, we determined that

          the furniture should most likely be made out of solid

          timber.

              You can't just buy solid timber off the street at

          any given moment.  As soon as there is an indication on

          a project that there is going to be materials that might

          be hard to get hold of or have a long lead-time, I make

          phone calls.

              I did this in the case before the contract was even

          signed, to get the biggest lead-time we could get.

      Q.  So have you or have you not ordered things by then?

      A.  No, of course not.  No orders were placed until they

          were approved --

      Q.  But you informed her that you are now fully on to the

          brewery?

      A.  I informed who?

      Q.  You informed Steve Carroll?

11:54 A.  I said it was a potential job coming up and I asked him

          to call his timber suppliers to find out what we could

          get; what kind of species of tree.

              Teak is very rare nowadays to get in large

          quantities.  It's very difficulty to get wood out of

          Indonesia or Malaysia or Burma.  Sometimes they actually

          even chop the trees down for our jobs.

      Q.  You wrote to her to say that, "Hey, Poole Associates is

          fully on the brewery job", correct?  That's all.

      A.  Did I say that?  Where is it?

      Q.  Look at page 182 of the pink -- there is a pink bundle

          at your extreme left.  Look at volume 2, page 182.

          That's your email, right?

      A.  Yes, okay.

      Q.  And you said, "We are now fully on Highlander and the

          Brewery"?

      A.  Again, this needs clarification.  "Fully on", again, is

          referring to -- you have to understand what happened

          during that time.  On May 29 there was a devastating

          earthquake that happened in southern Java.  The

          factories that we have used in the past were completely

          destroyed.  We had other ongoing projects, for a

          five-star hotel in the Maldives where some of the

          furniture was also destroyed and people were killed.

              So it was a very trying time.  We didn't know how

11:56     many factories were still available, how many of the

          workmen died, or what.  This was just giving him

          reassurance that there's going to be something coming

          on.  And I am asking him, "Are you ready to go?  Can you

          workmen do any further work?"  That's all I am asking by

          that.

      Q.  Yes, you were asking and you were saying, "I will come

          back".  You did say that but you also said that you are

          "fully on to the brewery work".  That is what I am

          interested in.  Right.  Forget about earthquake.

      A.  Fully on sketching but not under contract.

      Q.  Yes.  What do you mean by your "fully on but under

          contract"?

      A.  Fully on, I mean, can be interpreted in many ways.

      Q.  What do you mean?

      A.  I meant that we were working on it, and I was giving him

          warning.  I do this on lot of projects; I warn our

          suppliers that there is a job maybe coming up.  And

          sometimes in the Cape if there --

      Q.  Mr Poole, I am not quarrelling with the fact that you

          are telling them the job is coming, "I need this,

          earthquake may be a problem".  All that considered, but

          my points is, you are writing to them to say that "fully

          on" on this job, the brewery.  That's all.

      A.  Okay.

11:57 Q.  So you were on the job, at least by the time you sent

          this email --

      A.  Mm-hmm.

      Q.  -- on 29 May 2006; correct?

      A.  Mm-hmm.

      Q.  Do you agree?

      A.  Mm-hmm.

      Q.  Can I move on, then?

              Now, in fact you went even further.  You went to

          make suggestions, like -- suggestions like locating the

          tanks for the brewery in a glass showcase outside.  Am I

          right?

      A.  What are you referring to in this regard?

      Q.  Did you make all these suggestions before you signed the

          written contract on 1 July?

      A.  I received sketches from Colin Simpson that showed some

          basic layouts of a brewery, and then what my team is we

          take those drawings, plot them into the floor plan and

          then see how the rest of the space works out.

      Q.  Did you make this suggestion before 1 July, i.e. 31 May?

      A.  Make suggestions on what?  Repeat, on what?

      Q.  Suggesting about how the brewery should be?

      A.  No, not at all.  It was always data given to me by other

          people.

      Q.  You didn't make any --

11:58 A.  It is sketches given to me by other people.

      Q.  You never made any suggestions that it should be outside

          in a chill box?

      A.  No, no.

      Q.  Can I refer you to page 185?  Second last paragraph from

          the bottom, please.  Can I read to you -- first of all,

          this was your email?

      A.  Mm-hmm.

      Q.  "I propose that the tanks be located outside the unit".

          You are talking about the brewery; right?

      A.  Yeah, the tanks.

      Q.  "In a chilled glass box".

      A.  Yeah, correct.

      Q.  "It would make a fantastic signage, but they said

          alteration ..."  Et cetera.

      A.  Okay, that refers to --

      Q.  Doesn't that --

      A.  If you refer to the floor plan --

      Q.  -- contradict what you have just said?

      A.  No, it doesn't, not at all, because what it was

          indicating -- at that time we didn't know where the bar

          is going to be, where the brewery is going to be, where

          the toilets are going to be, where the kitchen is going

          to be, where anything's going to be.

              So we're given a layout plan for the brewery, and

11:59     one of the things that we talked about is what if we

          move the brewery up against the window.  So taking that

          block of drawing and moving it to the front, that is

          what it is referring to.

      Q.  Right.  Okay, agreed.  So it was all suggestions from

          you, right, with regard to all this?

      A.  It had nothing to do with the internal workings of the

          brewery --

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, I hate to interrupt at this point in

          time but I think we are going a bit too fast.  So can I

          propose a break at this point in time so that the

          transcribers can have a break?

      COURT:  Okay.

      (12.01 pm)

                             (Short break)

      (12.12 pm)

      COURT:  Witness, for the health of our court reporters, can

          you please slow down?

      A.  Yes, I apologise.

      MR VIJAY:  I think both the witness and myself place on

          record our apologies to the transcribers, your Honour.

          We will take note.

      COURT:  Yes, do not stress them.

      MR VIJAY:  Is there anything else you want to say to the

          last question with regard to page 185 of volume 2 before

12:14     I move on?

      A.  No, I think I was clear on that.

      Q.  In fact, you were so involved at this point of time that

          you were even concerned about time; am I right?

      A.  Of course, yes.

      Q.  "Time" meaning how fast this Pump Room project can be

          completed.

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  You were concerned; right?

      A.  Yes?

      Q.  And what was the target date?

      A.  The clients' expectation was October.

      Q.  October.  And you were helping them to achieve that?

      A.  I was, yes, can I explain -- until it became apparent by

          other consultants that that date was not attainable.

      Q.  And you were helping them -- sorry, did you finish?

              And you were helping them to reach this timeline as

          far back as 12 June 2006?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  In fact, on 14 June, you sent floor plans for

          discussion, and materials?

      A.  Sent to whom?  Can you refer me to a page?

      Q.  I can refer you, page 189, the same volume, volume 2,

          the last line, "... as the brewery plan is resolved with

          the structure".  That's how you end the email; right?

12:16 A.  Yes, that's correct.

      Q.  Okay.  Your date is 14 June 2006.  It's written the

          other way, American style.  14 June; right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And in fact now you have also progressed to order items

          for The Pump Room in June 2006?

      A.  No.

      Q.  No?

      COURT:  Can you specify what you mean by "items"?

      MR VIJAY:  Yes, your Honour.

      A.  Can I explain?

      COURT:  Let him clarify first.

      MR VIJAY:  Maybe I will ask you the question again.  Prices

          for items started coming from Bali, correct?

      A.  Can you refer me to a specific page?

      Q.  Page 192, please, volume 2 of the agreed bundle.

      A.  Okay, yes.

      Q.  Right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  So would you therefore agree that as far back as in May

          and June you were already working on The Pump Room

          project?

      A.  Of course I was working on it.

      Q.  Yes.  And 1 July, of course you had your written

          contract.  But assuming there was no written contract,

12:18     would you not have charged The Pump Room for all those

          works and things you did?

      A.  No, because there was no --

      Q.  You are doing it free?

      A.  There -- can I -- no, I would not have.  Can I explain?

      COURT:  Yes.

      A.  There are many instances where we get involved in

          projects, where we start doing work and then for some

          reason the job falls through, something does not work

          out and it's terminated, or something happens and we

          don't carry on.  It happens often.

      MR VIJAY:  Okay.  You were doing the work and functions of

          a project manager during this time, i.e. before 1 July

          2006.

      A.  No.  There was no contract at that time.

      Q.  Leaving the written contract aside, were you actually

          doing the work of project management?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Didn't Chris Shelley call you for a project review or

          project meeting around this time?

      A.  Again, what date?

      Q.  Okay, I apologise, I withdraw that question.

              I had my date wrong, sorry, your Honour.

              Can I move on to something else and can I refer you

          to volume 1 of the agreed bundle?  This volume consists

12:19     of all your drawings; right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  All these are your drawings; right?

              Now, from page 1 to page 8 are all your drawings,

          and can you confirm that these pages 1 to 8 were all

          done before 1 July 2006?

      A.  No, I can't verify that, and I can't verify that these

          are all the drawings either.

      Q.  If I refer you to the bottom of your drawing, you can

          find the date.  If I start with page 1, on the left hand

          column, right at the bottom you can see 22 May 2006.

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  All right.  If you go on, 22 May, the next one, 22 May,

          the other one is 30 May --

      COURT:  Never mind; what is your question?  What is your

          question?  You have to speed up, you know.

      MR VIJAY:  So you were doing so many drawings for them even

          before July; correct?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Okay.  Now, and you also around this time, you also drew

          up some terms; you started drafting contracts for the

          contractor; am I right?

      A.  It's a standard part of our drawing set called GN1 and

          GN2.  It's a standard format that goes in the front of

          any set of drawings that comes out of my office.

12:21 Q.  That can be found at pages 36 and 37 of this volume 1,

          right?

      A.  Yes, correct.

      Q.  Can I refer you to pages 36 and 37.

              This was drafted by you, correct?  If I go on to my

          next question -- can you have a look at it?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Now, here, you drafted this specifically for The Pump

          Room?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Can you look at page 36 on the extreme right-hand side?

      A.  Mm-hmm.

      Q.  It says there "For The Pump Room, general notes"?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  You drafted altogether 37 clauses.  The first eight

          clauses -- can I take you clause by clause -- the first

          six clauses, okay, it is in line with interior design,

          you are asking for drawings, et cetera, and clause 8,

          I will leave that because it's neither here nor there,

          can I then run across to start off with clause 13.

              Clause 13 says that site work shall be restricted to

          mainly installation work, with all noisy and messy work

          to be done off site?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Mr Poole, would you agree that this is part of project

12:23     management and not interior design -- agree or disagree?

      A.  No, this is a general term for the contractor on a --

          it's a general specification to encompass any type of

          project.

      Q.  Can I refer you now to clause 14, it says that the

          contractor must liaise closely with the client and

          landlord, main contractor for coordination of works so

          that no delays are incurred; would you agree that this

          is project management and not interior decoration or

          interior architecture -- "yes" or "no" will do.

      A.  You are referring to paragraph 14?

      Q.  Clause 14, page 36, volume 1, agreed bundle.

      A.  Do I believe that's project management?  No, it's

          a statement of fact.

      Q.  Then can I go on to clause 15, please.  You have said

          that the contractor shall make the necessary

          registrations on the forms provided -- the landlord, at

          least five clear working days, et cetera -- paragraph

          15, would you agree is in the nature of project

          management, rather than interior decoration?

      A.  No, this is taken from -- this is a basic general

          condition of almost every landlord in Singapore, so it's

          included in this as part of general notes.

      Q.  Can I now take you --

      A.  A general note to the contractor.

12:24 Q.  At clause 16, you say here that the contractor shall

          apply for contractor's pass and ensure that they wear

          the passes at all times -- project management, right?

          "Yes" or "no", please?

      A.  Again, it's a general --

      Q.  Just a "yes" or "no" will do --

      A.  No.

      Q.  Clause 17, you're insisting that toilet should be at

          a suitable location -- project management, right?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Clause 18, you are saying that the contractors' access

          to enter the car park and deliver construction

          materials -- again project management -- "yes" or "no"?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Clause 19, contractors shall ensure that they store

          goods kept within the employer's premises -- project

          management, right?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Clause 20, you say that to ensure that the workmen do

          not use the premises for temporary accommodation -- is

          that part of interior decoration?  No, right?

      A.  No, it's -- as I'm saying, it's a general note to the

          contractor.  It goes out to every contractor we ever

          deal with on any project.

      Q.  Yes.  It is a general note relating to project

12:25     management and not interior decoration?

      A.  This has to be read in conjunction, because it falls

          under the heading of interior architecture only, the

          heading -- our scope, it falls under our scope.  It's

          not issued as an entire scope job or project, it's under

          my interior scope.

      Q.  Clause 21, "Hacking or quarrying the floor structure

          will not be permitted..."?

      A.  Mm-hmm.

      Q.  Project work, right?  Project management?

      COURT:  He has already answered that these are in the

          context of his limited scope.  If you are going to go

          through every one, we will have a problem, because there

          are so many clauses.

      MR VIJAY:  Yes, your Honour.  That is the very thing I am

          trying to establish --

      COURT:  He says that the whole lot --

      MR VIJAY:  The whole lot, your Honour, maybe I can just --

      COURT:  Just ask him one question.  He has already told you

          that this is issued in the context of his specific --

          (unclear -- simultaneous speakers) -- and submit.

      MR VIJAY:  I will, your Honour.  I will round it up, your

          Honour.

              So are all the clauses on page 37, except clauses

          30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 -- they all relate to project

12:27     management, general notes or otherwise?

      A.  No, again I'm saying it's in the context of my interior

          scope of works, not the overall project.  Like --

      COURT:  You have answered, so shall we stop there?

              Next question.

      MR VIJAY:  What do you mean by that?

      A.  I'm assuming that he's using the words "project

          management" in terms of the entire scope of the job and

          I'm saying no, that's not the entire scope of the job --

      COURT:  Yes, I understand you fully --

      A.  But it's under --

      COURT:  We should stop here on this matter.  You can submit.

          Let's move on to the next subject.

      MR VIJAY:  Okay.  May I then move on to your agreement with

          The Pump Room which is on page 82 of your affidavit.

              Your Honour, I'm asking for some indulgence to go

          through this in detail, it's crucial to my case.

              Page 82 onwards is your contract dated 1 July.  Can

          I quickly move on to page 86.  Before that, one

          preliminary question; this was drafted by you, right,

          Mr Poole?

      A.  Well, technically, yes.  It was actually with the

          assistance of several lawyers.

      Q.  Okay.  So you had legal advice as well?

      A.  Of course.

12:28 Q.  Page 86, it defines scope of services?

      A.  Mm-hmm.

      Q.  That's just the first two lines.  Scope of services is

          defined as surveying, planning, designing, detailing,

          observing construction, installation and project

          management -- and project management -- confirm?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  And then you have divided all the scope of services in

          five stages below?

      A.  Mm-hmm.

      Q.  Programming and so on, stage 1 to stage 5, right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  If I may turn on to the next page, page 87, you have now

          taken these five stages of work and put in the amount

          due for each stage, categorically?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  One difference, for stage 2, instead of 20 per cent, you

          have made it 10 per cent, right, and you put the other

          10 per cent to be paid to you on commencement of work --

          nothing turns on this, just for clarification?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Page 87, in the second paragraph, fees are calculated on

          the estimation of the extent of work and the time

          required to complete the project -- correct?  Okay?

              Now, if I move on to page 90, now we come to the

12:30     first part of it, that's stage 1, programming, 6,800

          dollars?

      A.  Mmm.

      Q.  Stage 1, 10 per cent, 6,800 dollars for this work,

          right?

              For the 6,800 you're required to meet the clients'

          project manager to establish administrative procedures,

          right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Schedules, budget guidelines and other objectives for

          the project as a whole?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Now let me pause here.  Did you do any of this?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Which one?

      A.  All of them -- no, except meeting with the project

          manager because, at the time, the assumed project

          manager was the client.

      Q.  All right.  Did you establish administrative procedures,

          schedules, budget guidelines?

      A.  This is referring to basically a general idea of how the

          project is going to carry forward.  Schedules, of course

          the client gave an issue of a schedule, they wanted to

          open on October 6.

      Q.  Okay, the third --

12:31 A.  Guidelines were discussed, the clients had a general

          idea of what they wanted under the general concept of

          what The Pump Room would be, so we discussed many things

          on what materials would be used to meet the budget.

      Q.  Mr Poole, can you show me where the administrative

          procedures are?  Do you have the document?  Do you have

          --

      A.  No, there is no document --

      Q.  No document, okay --

      A.  It's a discussion about administrative procedures --

      Q.  Are there any documents relating to budget guidelines?

      A.  Budget guidelines, no.  This is programming, this is

          a general scope of what you do for the start of the job.

          If -- can I explain, your Honour?

      COURT:  Yes.

      A.  Okay, some projects we work on where we have done

          projects where the client says, "I have no money at all,

          I just needed to get something open".  Then we have

          a lot of clients that want five star hotels.  Then we

          have some clients now that they want six star plus.

              So under that, budget guidelines and other

          objectives, it's a general direction on where to go

          because you don't want to redesign or have everybody

          disappointed in the end, because it wastes time, so it's

          a general direction to go from the start of the job.

12:32 MR VIJAY:  Okay, can I -- third paragraph from the top.

          You'll evaluate and agree with the client the type of

          contracts, tenders, procurement that would be utilised?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Done or not done?

      A.  Yes, that was.  Can I explain?

      COURT:  Yes.

      A.  Under my FF+E, which is furniture, finishes and effects

          it was discussed that, in order to meet their budget

          guideline, their budget and expectations, that the best

          way forward would be to cut out all middlemen.

              That meant that we would set up a system where

          I would contact the factories, they would do the quotes,

          they would be sent to the client, the client would

          approve and send the deposits, and then the furniture

          would arrive on the site for the main contractor.

              That is a very, very clear type of procedure and

          tendering process.  It did not include ordering from

          existing showrooms in Singapore, or from known

          manufacturers of mass-produced furniture.  It's a very

          specific way to handle the job.

              That was discussed.  That's what the discussion was

          about, for types of contracts, tenders and procurement.

      MR VIJAY:  The most important party was Mason Works, right,

          in the whole project?

12:34 A.  No, I would -- no, he was not the main -- well, he was

          the main contractor, yes, but not the main party.  There

          were many other consultants involved that played just an

          equal role.

      Q.  Compared to these people whom you buy things from, his

          was the bigger contract, right?

      A.  Of course.

      Q.  Were there any evaluation type of contract tenders done,

          for Mason Works?

      A.  I was asked by the client, again, under administrative

          procedures, to review contract 2, which included my

          scope of the works which was the FF+E portion, meaning

          the dining room and the toilets, of which I did.

      Q.  Do you have any contract to show that you had done these

          things?  Do you have any documents to support what you

          are saying?

      A.  That I --

      Q.  That you prepared type of contracts, tenders -- (unclear

          -- simultaneous speakers) --

      A.  Well, I don't prepare the contracts on the purchasing of

          the items.  It's all done by other people.  Are you

          referring to Mason Works' contract?

      Q.  Mason Works and all -- everybody who --

      A.  Well, there's evidence that he issued one contract and

          then he issued another one with the price changed, and

12:35     actually the scope of his work within that contract also

          changed.

      Q.  In the next paragraph, you prepared a preliminary

          project schedule for the clients' review; was this done?

          If it was done, please show me where.

      A.  No, I did not, because, again --

      Q.  No, Mr Poole, you did not do -- (unclear -- simultaneous

          speakers) --

      A.  No, I did not do, it was done by Mason Works.

      Q.  It was your duty to do it?

      A.  I'm not the person building the walls.  My job is to

          advise the client on how long it might take to build

          a project, but I am not the one that puts the brick

          walls up, or does the tiling, so my advice to the client

          is the day -- in fact the day after my contract was

          signed, or the day of the contract being signed,

          I called Mason Works and I asked them to do

          a preliminary schedule of the data that they had, that

          we had thus far and his company issued a timeline, which

          also indicated that the project couldn't be done under

          the client's expectation.

      Q.  You were supposed to do the contract, right -- "yes" or

          "no"?  You were supposed to do the contract between the

          plaintiff and Mason Works, correct?

      A.  No.

12:36 Q.  According to this clause?

      A.  No, because it was decided between them that, you

          know --

      Q.  I'm not talking about -- (unclear -- simultaneous

          speakers) --

      A.  Mason Works was already on board, that was never

          a discussion because Mason Works was already there.

      Q.  And who brought them on board?

      A.  Clark Martin.

      Q.  Not you?

      A.  No, not me.

      Q.  We'll come back to that.

      A.  No.

      Q.  There was no -- look, next one, the second last

          paragraph, you will review the site conditions, conduct

          a detailed site survey, verify interior architecture?

      A.  Yes, we did that.

      Q.  That was done?

      A.  Yes, we did.  Again can I quickly explain?  We were

          given drawings by the landlord --

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

      A.  -- and they didn't match the site.

      Q.  Okay, next one.  "Poole Associates will analyse and

          amalgamate planning requirements for the schematic

          design presentation."  Not done, right?

12:37 A.  Yes, it was done.

      Q.  Do you have it in a document to show which page of your

          affidavit, or whatever?

      A.  I believe that would have been referring back to that

          set of drawings, maybe a drawing that was issued on

          5 May.

      Q.  You're referring to the drawing?

      A.  Yeah.

      Q.  Okay.  Page 91, the first part -- I will take the second

          part "Preliminary Planning design" -- I'm not asking,

          you may have done that?

      A.  Yes, we did --

      Q.  The second part, provision of building services,

          limitations of existing elements, budgets and conditions

          of the project brief -- not done, right?  Budget and

          conditions of the project brief -- was it done?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Can I have a look at the budget and conditions of

          project that you have done?

      A.  No, the -- it says we will prepared preliminary planning

          and design concepts, so what we were referring to here

          is a drawing, not a document, not a Word document, we

          were referring to a drawing --

      Q.  Mr Poole, I am not quarreling with you on the first two

          lines.  My question is based on --

12:39 A.  But this is in reference to the other -- this is in

          reference to words that are at the bottom of the

          paragraph.  "We will prepare preliminary planning and

          design concepts in consideration of the clients'

          requirements."

              That means -- the clients' requirements were

          a microbrewery, a kitchen, some toilets, a bar, dining

          room.  That was amalgamated onto a floor plan and given

          to them.

      Q.  You would prepare preliminary planning and design for

          the budget, conditions of the project brief?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  What, that is only drawing, nothing else?

      A.  That is what that is referring to, preliminary planning

          and design concepts.

      Q.  Can I take you down.  There are two items, "Initial

          schematic presentation will include ..."   You have

          clarified, 1 and 2.  Leave out 1; come to 2, right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  You say, "Preliminary estimation of probable cost ..."

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  "... indicating estimations for all construction items,

          furniture, finishes and other consultants required for

          the proper supply and fitout works."

              Done or not done?

12:40 A.  Of course it was in the process.  There is no definitive

          "done".  A preliminary estimation of probable cost --

          until you have a full project, fully designed, you can't

          have full --

      COURT:  Can you slow down a bit?

      A.  You can't have full costs count.

      COURT:  (Unclear -- simultaneous speakers).

      MR VIJAY:  I put it to you that was not done.

      A.  It was done.

      Q.  Can you show me if it was done, please?

      A.  It's impossible to show you as a document.  It is many,

          many documents.

      Q.  It is impossible to show because you have not done it,

          Mr Poole?

      A.  No, we have done it.

      Q.  You have done estimation for construction items?

      A.  Yes, Eugene, can we refer to my cost matrix?

      MR TAN:  Your Honour, may I assist the court?

      MR VIJAY:  I have no problems with that your Honour.  Can

          I ask my next question.  Is it in the affidavit?

      MR TAN:  It's in the affidavit, your Honour.

      COURT:  All right.

      A.  Page 126 to 128, item number 2, preliminary estimation

          of probable cost, indicating estimations for all

          construction items, furniture, finishes and other --

12:41     (unclear -- simultaneous speakers) --

      COURT:  Ah --

      A.  -- required for the process, that appears in what is

          called The Pump Room Clarke Quay preliminary cost

          estimation revision 3 on pages 126, 127 and 128.

      MR VIJAY:  When did you do this?

      A.  This is an ongoing process.  You see revision 3, it

          would have been updated on a daily basis, when costs

          come in from different suppliers and different

          manufacturers, as the design process changes, then this

          cost matrix can be updated, in some cases every single

          day --

      Q.  Can I refer you page 125 please?  Is that the date?

      A.  This particular one was issued's on.

      Q.  15 September?

      A.  15 September.  It was 15 September.

      Q.  And where is the work relating to Mason Works, the other

          aspects?  This is --

      A.  The other aspects were issued under Mason Works'

          contracts which was issued on September 8

          -- September 8.

      Q.  Your understanding of probable cost only refers to the

          purchases of items you are making, isn't it?

      A.  Yes, because my contract includes -- it states it's

          interior architecture, FF+E, furniture, finishings and

12:42     effects, to build the dining room and the toilets,

          that's all.

      Q.  Does it say in the details of your scope of work that it

          is confined to interior design et cetera?

      A.  Yes, it does, the first page of my contract.  The

          heading on my contract.

      COURT:  Do you have a --

      A.  Page 82, "Interior design proposal".

      COURT:  Mr Vijay, his whole case is that all these works

          must be read in the context --

      MR VIJAY:  Of the small little heading -- I am coming to

          that, your Honour.  What he's referring to is his logo

          where the standard words are always there, your Honour.

          If I may, your Honour, he is now clutching at a straw,

          actually.

      COURT:  Well, he can give his evidence and you can submit

          but let's not revisit the same point.  This trial must

          end by Friday.

      MR VIJAY:  Allow me just --

      COURT:  Yes, I allow you to ask questions, but let's not

          revisit the same ground.

      MR VIJAY:  Mr Poole, page 82, you see, whenever The Pump

          Room logo or sign comes, or rather, more appropriately,

          when the Poole Associates sign comes up, there's always

          this word, "Interior Architecture + e.Design".

12:44 A.  That's correct.

      Q.  That is your standard -- I notice that you have it

          everywhere?

      A.  Because that's my company logo.

      Q.  That's part of your logo; right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  So where does it say -- the contents of your contract is

          on page 84.  Mr Poole, 84 summarises the scope of

          services, summary project et cetera.

      A.  No, that is an index.  This is an index.

      Q.  Yes, that is the contents, index, right?  And there

          should be no doubt because you have set them all out in

          detail on subsequent pages.

      A.  On page 85, it says "scope".  Full scope, interior

          architecture.  That is my scope.  Full scope, interior

          architecture.

      Q.  Your Honour, I won't be long but I will just go to the

          main one.  If I may take you to page 92 of your

          affidavit:

              "Revised probable cost estimates indicating

          estimation of all construction."

              All construction, right.  Does it limit to what you

          are saying, interior design et cetera?

      A.  All construction, again in reference to the interior

          architectural scope.

12:46 Q.  That's what you are saying now -- is it anywhere --

      A.  Your Honour, could I just make one statement?

      COURT:  Yes.

      A.  You know, I do have in my affidavit at some point that

          this is the first time in 500 contracts that anybody has

          misinterpreted the point that my services are for

          interior architecture.  It has never happened before.

          It is very clear.  The headings say the scope of work is

          interior architecture.

      MR VIJAY:  It could be the other way -- they have all been

          misinterpreting.  But I am not going to your 500

          contract --

      COURT:  Your case is that he is the project manager, is it?

      MR VIJAY:  Yes, your Honour, for the whole works as spelled

          out in his contract.

      COURT:  Can all the lawyers look at page 90 and give me your

          views on this later?

      MR VIJAY:  Yes, your Honour.

      COURT:  Poole Associates will meet with the client's project

          manager.

      MR VIJAY:  Ah.  Your Honour, this --

      COURT:  This is the same contract.  If he is going to meet

          with your client's project manager, how does this effect

          the contract?  Can you all submit on this?  We can't be

          picking little pieces there; you have to look at the

12:47     contract as a whole.  So you should all think about this

          and submit.

              Nobody has mentioned this at page 90.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, there is a reference to "project

          manager" there.  Probably I can clarify that with him.

              Your Honour the whole content is -- I will leave

          it --

      COURT:  You all can submit, right, but I am just asking all

          of you to think about this.  If you all say this is

          a contract to project manage and he is the project

          manager, I just want to know your submissions.

              It is the construction of a contract, all right.

          Why is it he is to meet the client's project manager, if

          he is the project manager?  And his case therefore is

          "Yes, I am the project manager to manage what is within

          my field, which is design and architectural services".

          Is that right?

      A.  No, not architectural services.  Only interior design.

      COURT:  Yes, interior design.  That was the phrased used

          by --

      A.  FF+E.

      COURT:  So that's your case, right?

      A.  Yes, correct.

      COURT:  So you all submit on this.

      MR VIJAY:  Can I just follow up with a few questions on

12:48     this?

      COURT:  All right.

      MR VIJAY:  So you are saying that you project manager only

          the interior design and things like that?

      A.  Yes, because it is an incredibly complex procedure and

          you have to meet deadlines.

      Q.  So when you say project manager or "project manage", you

          are referring to yourself as project manager with regard

          to the interior works?

      A.  Correct, my scope of services.

      Q.  So who -- so there were other project managers?

      A.  Well, at the time the contract -- as Mr Fred Wong

          mentioned, that when he was brought on board as project

          manager -- he was introduced to me as project manager --

          the person handling that role was the collective group

          of directors.  I mean, in my case it was -- my direct

          contact was mostly with Clark and then it was passed on

          to Bill.  But then when Fred came on board he was the

          so-called project manager as far as I was concerned.

      Q.  And who was project managing the brewery side?

      A.  Well, that fell under Fred's scope, because his

          contract -- well, I didn't see his contract until these

          proceedings started.  But, you know, he was liaising

          with the structural engineer.

      Q.  So at any one time, you are saying, there were more than

12:49     one project managers around?

      A.  No, not necessarily.

      Q.  You were for the interior; there was someone else for

          the exterior?

      A.  Oh, yes, in that regard, yes, yes.

      Q.  Right.  But who was the overall project manager,

          Mr Poole?

      A.  Fred Wong.

      Q.  But Fred Wong only came in on 20th or 21st August 2006?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  So who was the overall before that?

      A.  The clients.  There's no need for a project manager

          until you have something to manage.  At that time, we

          were only looking at concept sketches of drawings.

          There was nothing to manage.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, I can't possibly finish.  May I stop

          here?

      COURT:  How long more will you take with this witness?

      MR VIJAY:  I have difficulty in estimating because -- very

          long in the answers.  I will go faster.  Definitely by

          today, your Honour.

      COURT:  You can finish by today?

      MR VIJAY:  Sure.

      COURT:  All right.  We will adjourn until 2.30.

      (12.51 pm)

12:51                  (The luncheon adjournment)

      (2.40 pm)

      MR ONG:  May it please your Honour, I'm deeply sorry, we

          were caught in the rain and we came back a bit late.

      COURT:  I'm glad you are all safe.

              Before we adjourned for lunch, I asked you all to

          take a look at page 90; right?  Would you like to ask

          any questions on that or would you like to move on to

          your next topic?

      MR VIJAY:  Not on page 90, your Honour.

      COURT:  Well, I just wanted to remind you of the

          opportunity.  Carry on, any way you like.

      MR VIJAY:  Thank you, your Honour.

              So you are saying that your scope of works as

          project manager was limited to interior architecture;

          correct?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And that's what I say your 1 July 2006 contract says

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  And is it your case also that you continued with this

          role until the end of the project?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Then please tell me, why were you talking about

          variation of the contract at the end of July to delete

          project management?  Tell me.

14:38 A.  Can you refer me to a specific page?

      Q.  What is it?  There's no specific page here.  My question

          is: if that is the case, why are you negotiating with

          Bill Graham to leave you completely out of project

          management at the end of July 2006?

      A.  It wasn't a negotiation; he was unclear as to the

          reading of my contract.  It was -- he was misunderstood.

      Q.  We covered this ground.  You have categorically stated

          in your pleadings -- I have shown you, where you stated

          at the end of July you were relieved of your total

          project management.

              Mr Poole, I can only put it to you that it is

          obvious from your silence that you were the project

          manager.  You are trying to wriggle out but it is a bit

          difficult, Mr Poole.

      A.  I'm sorry, I was project manager for my scope of the

          works.

      Q.  Can I carry on?

              Mr Poole, Chris Shelley, was he involved with

          interior architecture or was he only concerned with the

          brewery?

      A.  He was only concerned with the brewery.

      Q.  And were you project managing the brewery?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Not at all?

14:40 A.  No.

      Q.  Maybe some overlap project management?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Not at all?

      A.  No.

      Q.  You don't co-ordinate?  Nothing?

      A.  They would send me the layout plan of the brewery and

          then I would plot it into our flow --

      Q.  Oh, because you need the drawings.

      A.  Because somebody needs to put it all together.

      Q.  Right.  Who was putting it all together?

      A.  My company put it all together.

      Q.  Right.

      A.  But we were not managing it.

      Q.  Why, then, did Chris Shelley call you up for a project

          review?

      A.  Can you refer me to that request?

      Q.  Has Chris Shelley ever called you up for a project

          review?

      A.  I believe during the entire course of the project he

          contacted me only once.

      Q.  And what was that for?  For a project review?

      A.  I can't remember exactly what, but if you can refer me

          to the page where.

      Q.  I have not yet referred to you any pages; I am asking

14:41     you a question.  Were you at any time asked by Chris

          Shelley to attend a project review?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Can I then now refer you -- give me a minute.

      A.  He called a meeting.  You mean, project review --

      Q.  I have not asked any questions.  I'm just looking for

          the page.  Volume 1, agreed bundle 234, in the middle.

          234, please.

      A.  Bundle 1 is the drawings.

      Q.  Did I say volume 1?  Sorry, volume 2, please.

      A.  231?

      Q.  Page 234, please.

      A.  Okay.

      Q.  That's your email in the middle.  Is it 8 October or

          10 August?

      A.  It's 8 October.

      Q.  Whatever the date.

      A.  Okay, yeah.  He was simply calling a meeting.  He was

          calling a meeting with everybody.

      Q.  Yes, you included?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  "Can we do a full project review on Saturday?"  If you

          were not involved in the project management of the

          brewery, why are you being asked to the meeting?

      A.  It's a co-ordination meeting.  It's important to be

14:43     there, even when there's other aspects going on.

      Q.  Okay, it's important for you to be there, that's because

          you are the overall project manager; right?

      A.  No.

      Q.  No?  Then why is Chris Shelley saying this, "Hope we can

          all pull schedule back on track"?  That includes you.

      A.  Where do you see that?

      Q.  The last line of the same email.

      A.  I don't see.  I don't see that on this page.

      Q.  The last line.  Just above the words "Chris Shelley"?

      A.  Oh, "Hope we can pull back schedule ... for brewery".

      Q.  Can I move on.  If you have an answer I will wait.

      A.  Can you repeat the question?

      Q.  I said, if you were not involved, why is he asking all

          to pull -- all, "we can pull the schedule back on

          track" -- that includes you.  Why are you being

          included?

      A.  Because I was involved in the project.  Would you expect

          him to ask me to leave the room when he asked that

          question?  I mean, that's quite ridiculous.  It's a

          project co-ordination meeting that everybody on the job

          was there attending.  It is a blanket request.  It is

          a blanket request to everyone.

      Q.  Yes.  It is not a minutes of meeting, it's just an

          email.  Correct?

14:45         Next one, can I now go back to your contract and

          your affidavit?  That has cleared some of the air.  Let

          me just take you to what matters.  Page 93 of your

          affidavit, please.  This is stage 4.  Mr Poole, you

          allocate the highest amount of money for this, i.e.

          40 per cent, 27,200.  That's not in dispute.

              Now, what are you supposed to do for this money?

          You're supposed to "co-ordinate with the clients'

          procedures and advise on the form of contract,

          instructions, contractors, general conditions to be

          included in the contract drawings", et cetera.

              Let me just pick up the next paragraph.  I'll ask my

          question at the end of it to save time.

              Next one.  You will "compile a list of qualified

          recommended contractors and suppliers for the clients'

          review and prequalification prior to letting the

          construction and procurement contracts", and you will

          "prepare drawings, detailed specifications", which you

          have done, but you have to do that to "form the basis of

          the contract documents", right?  So you have to do

          drawings, details, so that the client can make a proper

          contact with the contractors, annexing all these

          drawings et cetera, et cetera, your pricing, et cetera.

          And for that, you were supposed to be paid the largest

          amount?

14:47 A.  Correct.

      Q.  Now, Mr Poole, tell me, did you draw up any contract

          with Mason Works, with all the necessary attachments?

      A.  No.

      Q.  No.  Thank you.

              In fact, Mr Poole, you never drew any contracts with

          anyone; am I right?

      A.  That's correct.

      Q.  Yes, all you did was you were happily ordering things?

      A.  No.

      Q.  You were ordering, you were checking on prices,

          Indonesia, Malaysia, orderings things.  Yes, you did.

      A.  No.  Can I clarify?

      Q.  That was your focus.

      A.  Can I clarify?  Poole Associates never, in the history

          of this company, has ever ordered materials for

          a client.  We advise the client, we organise getting the

          quotations and then we send them to the client and they

          order them, or the contractor orders them,

          Poole Associates never ever in 18 years of history has

          ever ordered any materials for a client.  Otherwise,

          we're liable to pay it, to pay for that material.

      Q.  You order --

      A.  No, we don't order.

      Q.  Order --

14:48 A.  We organise the orders.

      Q.  Okay, you liaise with the various suppliers and you

          agree the prices, the materials et cetera?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  The clients then pays, of course?

      A.  Yes, once it's approved.

      Q.  And you arrange for the delivery, right?  Is that what

          you are trying to say?  Is that fair?

      A.  Yes, fair enough, yeah.

      Q.  That's all you did, isn't it?

      A.  Mm-hmm.

      Q.  That's all you did, isn't it?

      A.  What do you mean, "That's all"?

      Q.  That's all the work you did?

      A.  For this stage 4?

      Q.  And when you say all these big words?

      A.  For this stage 4?

      Q.  When you say all these big words like

          interior architecture and all that, basically this is

          all you did, isn't it?

      A.  This --

      Q.  Of course, apart from your drawings and all that.

      A.  I'm sorry, but the bulk of the payment is for stage 4,

          because that is a bundle of documents that's like

          hundreds of pages long.  It describes everything in

14:49     order to make The Pump Room into reality.  It is an

          extremely tedious amount of work.  And that was done

          under --

      Q.  Mr Poole, you are not answering my question.  I will

          move on.  Can I refer you to page 32 of the pleadings?

      A.  Of the pleadings.

      Q.  That is the setting down bundle.  Maybe I'll just read

          to you to save time while you are looking for it:

              "The 1st defendant's role", you say here, "insofar

          as project management was concerned, was only to assist

          the plaintiff by liaising with various suppliers,

          obtaining from them quotations for selected materials

          and furniture for the interior design works."

              Right?

      A.  Yes --

      Q.  And then the following paragraph you say:

              "Anyway, the entire project management was

          subsequently excluded."

              So when you do work, that's your work.  But in the

          next paragraph you say even that everything was

          excluded.  Page 32 and page 33.  Please look at it.

      A.  You want me to read to where?

      Q.  I don't want you to read --

      A.  Number 2?

      Q.  2.

14:51 A.  I don't know.  Is that wording wrong?  "Defendant had

          discharged its responsibility by sourcing and ..."

      Q.  Mr Poole, can I go on to the next question, please?

      A.  Okay.

      Q.  Thank you.  If I may, page 94, I'll just refer you to

          two paragraphs only.  Page 94, Stage 4, contracts

          drawings and administration.  Page 94 of the contract:

              "Upon completion of the contract documents ...

          approval by the client, you will obtain ... negotiate a

          contract for the fitting out works on the clients'

          behalf."

              Not done, right?

      A.  No --

      Q.  Not in dispute any more?

      A.  It was done.

      Q.  I thought we disagreed that you didn't do any contract?

      A.  No, this was --

      Q.  Fitting out works --

      A.  No, Mason Works submit a quote on September 8, so that

          was --

      Q.  So you are riding on Mason Works' contract?

      A.  So that's negotiate a contract with Mason Works.

      Q.  You are taking credit for that?  Tell me.

      A.  No, they --

      Q.  Are you now saying that the 8 September contract is your

14:52     doing?

      A.  No, it's Mason Works' doing.

      Q.  So you didn't do that, right?  You are paid to do and

          you didn't do.

      A.  I think you're reading this wrong.

      Q.  Okay, I'm reading it wrong.  Leave it.  Let's go on to

          the next clause.

      A.  Okay.

      Q.  Upon receipt of the quotations, Poole Associates will

          evaluation the cost compliance with the specification

          schedule eventually to meet other conditions of the

          contract -- not done, right?  First of all, there were

          no quotations.  Can I move on?

      A.  There was a quotation, by Mason Works, for the FF+E

          works (unclear -- simultaneous speakers) my scope of

          contract.

      Q.  Yes, Mason Works gave quotations.  You did not.

      A.  No, Mason Works did, of course.  It says "upon receipt

          of the quotations".  There were quotations from outside

          sources.  I don't do quotes on furniture because I don't

          make the furniture.  I organise.

      Q.  It says here that Poole Associates -- that's you,

          right -- will evaluate the cost.  Have you evaluated the

          costs?

      A.  We looked at it with Mason Works.  We reviewed it, at

14:53     the clients' request.

      Q.  All the variations?  Everything?

      A.  No, on contract, on contract to -- that was

          date September 8, which involved the FF+E.

      Q.  All those -- you're only talking about the first

          contract, the variations?

      A.  No, the first one was demolition.  The second one was my

          scope.

      Q.  So which one?  First one was demolition, 20 July 2006.

          Were you involved?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Next one, 8 September 2006.  Were you involved?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  You were asked to come in?  Subsequent contracts?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Variations?

      A.  No, I was never cc'd on them.

      Q.  I lose count of the variations.

      A.  I never saw them.

      Q.  Anything you are involved in?

      A.  No.

      Q.  And you never even received them. That's your evidence,

          right?  Right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  So, for whatever reason, for whatever reason, you did

14:54     not do the work, right?  Whatever the reason -- leave

          the reasons aside; you did not do that work?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Let me round up by going to page 95.  It's the same

          theme.  Basically, it's the first two or three

          paragraphs.

              "You will verify contractors' claims of payment, and

          issue to the client a report to the accuracy of the

          claims and the suitability for payment."

              I am reading the second paragraph?

      A.  Mm-hmm.

      Q.  For whatever reasons, you did not do that, right, except

          with regard to 8 September --

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  -- 2006?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  And the third paragraph requires you to verify the total

          compliance with the contract documents, et cetera,

          et cetera.  Do you want me to read the whole thing?

      A.  No.

      Q.  You agree that that, for whatever reasons, was not done?

          Right?

      A.  No, that was done.

      Q.  Which was done?  Which part of it was done?

      A.  Well, the entire thing.

14:55 Q.  The entire thing?

      A.  Again, this paragraph is only in reference to the dining

          room and the toilets, so of course when the job is

          finished we go through and we walk through the project

          and make sure everything is correct for handover.  So

          any anomalies --

      Q.  So you were the project manager --

      A.  For my scope.

      Q.  -- for dining room and toilet only?

      A.  Yes, for dining room and toilets.

      Q.  Anyway.  Now, the next one.  Did you do as-built

          drawings?

      A.  Yes, we did, as far as we could, yes.

      Q.  Well, you didn't give it to the clients?

      A.  Yes, we did.

      Q.  Do you have any forwarding letter or enclosing letter?

      A.  There is an email saying that we delivered them by hand

          on -- was it --

      Q.  Okay.  Nothing much turns on it.  I am not going to

          quarrel with you about that.

      A.  We also delivered them in CD-ROM format.

      Q.  No.  You see, your main contention is that Mason Works

          was not appointed by you, but Clark or someone else?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  And because of that, you cannot be held responsible for

14:56     there being no contract or no compliance or no checking

          of the prices, et cetera, et cetera; correct:  Is that

          your case?  Because you never appointed Mason Works, so

          you say it's not your problem.

      A.  No.

      Q.  No.

      A.  The client can chose whoever they wants to be the

          contractor, but the --

      Q.  But let's go through this, because it was you who

          brought in Mason Works, right?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Right from the start, you wanted them in --

      A.  No, the documentation shows that Clark had already been

          speaking to Mason Works well before I was even

          approached at all about any of this.  Way before.  There

          is an email referring that a meeting took place in

          Mason Works' office months and months before.

      Q.  That was to choose you.  That, they say -- they discuss

          about choosing a good designer.  And they all chose you

          as a good designer.  There was no talk about Mason Works

          working for The Pump Room at that time?

      A.  Well, don't you think that if Clark is having a meeting

          in Mason Works's office about the project that it might

          be that it could be because he interested in using them?

      Q.  Not necessarily; I don't know.  You are speculating.

14:57     Let's leave it.

              Let me just ask your connection.  Just because he

          talks to them at the office, he must be selecting them.

      A.  He could have had that meeting with -- he could have

          interviewed ten contractors for all I know.

      Q.  You have worked with Mason Works on many projects, am I

          right, about ten, maybe?

      A.  If you define nine as many.

      Q.  Yes, almost ten, my calculation almost came to 10 --

          (unclear -- simultaneous speakers) --

      A.  But out of 500, I wouldn't call that many.

      Q.  All these nine contracts were in the last maybe three or

          four years -- recently, right?

      A.  No, I think --

      Q.  Five years, maybe?

      A.  At least five or six.

      Q.  But in the recent past, Mason Works has been more or

          less your -- you know, it has been the contractor in

          almost all --

      A.  No, that's not true.

      Q.  -- matters were you project managing or designing?

      A.  No, that's not true.

      Q.  Not true.  Even there's one ongoing or just ended

          Bobby's second --

      A.  You can count -- let's see, off the top of my head in

14:59     the past three years there would be 18 Soo Kee Jewellery

          shops done by Dorothy Lim of IWA Design.

      Q.  Okay.  I don't have to trouble you with the details, but

          wherever possible you do try to make an attempt to bring

          Mason Works in, right?

      A.  It depends -- no, we don't.  Whatever --

      Q.  You don't?

      A.  We do many different types of projects, so the thing is

          not all contractors are appropriate for each type of

          project, so it's important to start off from the

          beginning with a contractor that's able to do the work

          and the type of work involved, so that not all

          contractors can do --

      Q.  I agree, but coincidentally, as you said, Mason Works

          seems to have scored nine, quite a good, remarkable

          score.

      A.  But not all nine of those are making -- in a case of

          Highlander, Mason Works was selected by Clark, directly.

          I can't remember --

      Q.  Are you close to William?

      A.  Close?  In what way?

      Q.  Personal relationship, you travel together, you meet

          often?

      A.  Of course we travel together because we do research on

          getting materials for projects.  He came and visited the

15:00     factory where Highlander's bar was being made.  That was

          a necessity.

      Q.  And Mr Wan is also quite close to you?

      A.  In any way a normal contractor is with my firm.

      Q.  You see, the first time Mason Works came in was on

          20 July 2006, right, to demolish the walls?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And the other one was of course on 8 September 2006,

          right?

      A.  Mm-hmm?

      Q.  But you were already in The Pump Room project or works

          from May 2006?

      A.  I was looking at the job, but, as you said before, I was

          not on board formally until 6 July.

      Q.  1 July?

      A.  6 July.

      Q.  Dated 1 July --

      A.  Okay, yes.  I want to point out also, you know, as

          I mentioned before, until a contract is signed and/or

          a cheque is paid, I am not obligated to carry on with

          anything, because I'm not under contract.

      Q.  You were in the loop --

      A.  We had started the process.

      Q.  You were in the loop from May maybe 8, first week

          of May -- do you want me to show you emails to show your

15:01     involvement?  I can take you back again.

      A.  Involvement, yes.

      Q.  Okay, good.  So, am I right to say here the moment you

          put your foot in the door on 8 May 2006, you were

          already thinking how to bring in Mason Works?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Of course you will say no.  And in May/June, you were

          still trying --

      A.  No.

      Q.  -- to bring them in through your own efforts?

      A.  No.

      Q.  And you did this by keeping Mason Works in the loop.

          You know what I mean by "in the loop"?  In the know

          about what was going on between you and The Pump Room.

      A.  Yes, I was asked to keep them in the loop.  When any

          drawings were done, I was asked to send them to

          Mason Works.

      Q.  Ah.

      A.  I also sent drawings to another contractor, SKL

          Interiors; it's referred to in one of my emails --

          (unclear -- simultaneous speakers) --

      Q.  SKL Interiors were after July, right?

      A.  No, it was actually to tender on the entire project, but

          unfortunately --

      Q.  Nothing happened, right?

15:03 A.  He couldn't complete the tender so it wasn't even

          proposed to the client.  It was too full of holes, there

          were too many gaps in it.

      Q.  You were sending emails, copying emails to Mason Works,

          right from May/June 2006, when Mason Works had no

          business with the contract?

      A.  No, I never sent any -- (unclear -- simultaneous

          speakers) -- to Mason Works until the client requested

          me to.  Of course I was sending emails to Mason Works --

      Q.  So your answer is "the client requested" --

      A.  -- regarding The Highlander.

      Q.  I put to you nobody asked you because nobody has decided

          on Mason Works way back in May or June 2006, it is your

          evidence that they were first called on board only on

          20 July 2006 --

      A.  Can you refer to a document that shows that I sent

          specific Pump Room information to Mason Works?

      Q.  Certainly, I can show you more than one.  Let's start at

          page 181?

      A.  Of?

      Q.  Volume 2 of the agreed bundle of documents -- okay, page

          181, this is your email, right, to Steve Carroll in

          Indonesia?  Have you got 181?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  You are sending an email to Steve Carroll, 29 May 2006?

15:05 A.  Okay.

      Q.  Now, that's your email, right?

      A.  Mm-hmm.

      Q.  The date is 29 May 2006 -- May?

      A.  Okay.

      Q.  I emphasise that.  Now, look at the long list of ccs.

          At the end, can you see Wan Yew Fai from Mason Works?

      A.  Yeah.

      Q.  Right, and you were keeping him in the loop?

      A.  This --

      Q.  This is nothing to do with him, isn't it, the

          microbrewery and Highlander items --

      A.  I'm sorry, but this email is referring to Bobby's, it's

          also referring to the Highlander.  Wan Yew Fai was

          building Bobby's at Chijmes at the time and that's what

          it's referring to.  William at the time was working on

          Highlander.

      Q.  Can I take you to the contents:

              "Thank you for the update.  Bobby's" --

      A.  Can I also clarify here -- okay, this again was one

          of -- this was the date of the earthquake.

      Q.  Yes, the same --

      A.  Yes, so, again, when we heard that our factories that we

          work with quite a lot in southern Java were levelled to

          the ground, this was a frantic email notifying everybody

15:06     that there might be complications on their projects,

          because we had heard that certain areas of Java were

          levelled.

              That's what this is, it's a blanket email to as many

          people I knew that I could think of off the top of my

          head that had projects involved there.

      Q.  Okay.  Can I move on?  Don't worry, there are many more

          emails.

              Go on to page 191.  At page 191, this one is only

          The Pump Room, right?  This is your email anyway --

          first confirm it's your email, dated 20 June 2006, from

          Ed Poole?

      A.  Does it say it's from me?

      Q.  Right?  Right?

      A.  No.  Where is my name on it?

      Q.  Page 191, that's your email, right?

              Can you see at the top there, Wan from Mason Works

          has been -- Wan from Mason Works has been copied -- can

          you see his name at line 6, the sixth line from the top,

          can you see Wan from Mason Works, yes, right?

      A.  Yeah.

      Q.  It was copied to him --

      A.  Yeah.

      Q.  -- in June 2006?

      A.  Yes, because this email is also referring to

15:07     The Highlander.  It's referring to works that were

          ongoing with Mason Works in The Highlander.

      Q.  Your subject says "The Pump Room, updated planning"?

      A.  Okay, well, should I -- it's all here -- it says, "Here

          is the latest plan for The Pump Room and Highlander",

          the first line.

      Q.  So now you say it's because there is a -- and

          Highlander?

      A.  It says -- the first line.

      Q.  That's the problem, isn't it?

      A.  And on the bottom line.

      Q.  So can we go on then to page 192?

      A.  Okay.

      Q.  This one.

      A.  Okay.

      Q.  Is Highlander involved here?

      A.  No.  This one is specifically --

      Q.  And no one --

      A.  This is specifically about The Pump Room, and I cc'd

          Mason Works, yes.

      Q.  Yes, so what's your excuse?  All your excuses are no

          more valid here; right?

      A.  Mmm.

      Q.  Mr Poole, all your excuses -- you ran out of excuses

          now.  Let's go on to page 19?

15:08 A.  I am sorry if I can't remember dates from two years ago.

      Q.  I am not testing your memory.  I'm very fair to you.

          I'm pointing that out to you.

              Can I now just quickly take to you 194?  Same thing.

          194, Mr Poole.

      A.  Okay.

      Q.  6 July 2006, your email --

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  -- about table drawings?

      A.  Here are the table drawings.

      Q.  Right, The Pump Room, no one else involved?

      A.  No, this is also -- this is also involving Highlander.

      Q.  Okay.

      A.  Munggur wood was used in Highlander.

      Q.  Okay.  195?

      A.  Okay.  This one --

      Q.  Was done before Highlander?

      A.  -- is giving an idea to the contractor on the amount of

          wood that we want for the top.  It's a concept drawing

          going to Steve to try to find the timber.

      Q.  This is nothing to do with --

      A.  This is the day before the contract was signed.

      Q.  You're talking about your contract was signed?

      A.  Yeah, my contract, yes.

      Q.  Not Mason Works?

15:10 A.  No.

      Q.  But you copied --

      A.  No, but they were told -- I can't remember the date that

          Clark asked me to send the drawings to Mason Works.

      Q.  No, that's what you are saying.  Never here have

          you mentioned that you are forwarding these at the

          request of Mr Tack or whoever.  Have you said anywhere?

      A.  No, because emails are written quite informally.  There

          are hundreds of emails written in a day.  You don't

          explain everything.

      Q.  You see, only on 20 July were they involved in The Pump

          Room project.  So we know that the formal contract was

          even later, 8 September, and these are, what, June July?

          Maybe I will just pick one to round it up.  Page 200,

          please.

      A.  Okay.

      Q.  This is from you to Wan Yew Fai?

      A.  Yes.  Four days after my contract, and I am telling him

          that three suppliers have priced out the furniture for

          The Pump Room, the chairs and the bar stools.

              Okay, so now I'm formally involved in the job and

          already within 5 days I have preliminary prices for

          FF+E.

      Q.  Right, you sign the contract on 6 July.  10 July you are

          already writing to him and cc'ing to The Pump Room;

15:11     right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  And you are already saying the prices of three suppliers

          for chairs, bar stools et cetera?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Has the owners, The Pump Room, in writing approved or

          signed a contract with Mason Works as of 10 July 2006?

          Have they?

      A.  I don't believe so.

      Q.  Yes.

      A.  How could they, if he never issued quotations?  These

          are pre-quotation emails.  In order for Mason Works to

          do a quotation they have to know how much some of the

          items are costing.

      Q.  Right.

      A.  So of course there has to be communication.

      Q.  The communication was only to one, and one contractor

          only, i.e. Mason Works.

      A.  No, I'm sorry, it wasn't.  There is an email --

      Q.  There is one futile one.

      A.  There is an email where -- Eugene, I don't know if you

          can help me.

      Q.  Never mind.  Nothing came out of it; right?

      A.  There is an email that I sent to Clark, and I can't

          remember who else I cc'd it to, stating that I had sent

15:12     all the drawings and all the FF+E drawings to date to

          Mason Works and SKL Interiors.

      Q.  And what happened to the others?

      A.  He couldn't complete a tender sufficiently on time in

          order to make the deadline.

      Q.  Of course.

      A.  Because he was brought in the loop later.

      Q.  Mr Poole, did you the first place have a tender document

          to call for tender?

      A.  The documents were always in progression as we went.

          There was no time --

      Q.  Progression.  Until today it's in progression.  Have you

          done the --

      A.  The client wanted the project to open in October.  There

          is no time on earth that you could prepare the whole set

          as a full package and then issue out for tender to many

          contractors.  There simply wasn't enough time.

      Q.  Mr Poole.

      A.  It had to be done in pieces.

      Q.  Mr Poole, you signed a contract saying you will do it.

      A.  Yes, and I did --

      Q.  And if you can't do it because there's no time, then the

          only proper thing is to inform the client, "I cannot do

          it in this time".  Did you do that?

      A.  They were informed --

15:13 Q.  Did you do that?

      A.  They were informed by Mason Works on July 6 that they

          couldn't meet the deadline.  The day after my contract

          was signed.  The clients' first indication by an outside

          person advising them that it couldn't be built on time.

          And then subsequently RSP wrote back saying they

          couldn't do it on time --

      Q.  Never mind about Mason Works.  Did you, as the person

          who contracted on 1 July, did you even send one word to

          them that the deadline is not possible?

      A.  How could I say?  There's other consultants involved.

          It involved other things.  My drawings are one thing.

          How could I advise on the structural engineer when there

          wasn't one hired; the architect wasn't hired; the floor

          plan wasn't approved?  How could I possibly commit?

      Q.  Mr Poole, until just now this morning you were denying

          that you were told that October was the target date;

          right?

      A.  I never denied that.

      Q.  You denied everywhere.

      A.  I did not deny October was the target date.

      Q.  In your documents you have denied it.

      A.  I said it wasn't possible.

      Q.  In your pleadings.  Have you said in your affidavit or

          in your pleadings anywhere that the --

15:15 A.  On some day --

      Q.  -- that the projected date given to you during your

          discussions was October 2006?

      A.  Somewhere along the line, that date came up.  I don't

          remember the date.

      Q.  Mr Poole, you have not mentioned anywhere in your

          affidavit -- I am sorry if I'm wrong --

              Okay, fair enough.  Mr Eugene, I will go on with my

          question.

              May I have just one minute, your Honour?

              If Eugene says that there was a mention, I'll take

          it as it is.  I will go on with my next question.

              Mr Poole, you never sent out any tender.  No tenders

          went out in any event, right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Just now you said there were tenders to one other

          person?

      A.  One tender for the full contract of the construction of

          The Pump Room for the dining room and toilets.  But

          individually, a good chunk of that was the dining

          chairs, the bar stools and the tables, because it is an

          enormous amount of timber -- those went out to three

          contractors, Epic Furniture in Malaysia, Kayu Kaya in

          Bali and Heirloom in Jakarta.

      Q.  You're talking about tenders --

15:16 A.  For the furniture, which is the big bulk of the cost

          involved on the interior works for the dining room.

      Q.  Okay.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  You are sourcing in Malaysia and Indonesia.  Given

          that --

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  -- okay, that you did the job.  I am not going to take

          you through that, but I am talking about the contractor,

          Mason Works.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  There was no tender sent out; right?

      A.  Yes, there was, of what was available at the time, the

          package of drawings and all the FF+E specs.

      Q.  Look at page 320 of volume 2 of the agreed bundle of

          documents.  Page 320, please.  Have you got that?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  The first line, that's your email?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  First line, "Pump Room never went out to tender."

              That's your email confirming that?

      A.  No -- well, I said it never went out to tender because

          the second tender from SKL was never issued to him.  It

          did go out to tender but it was never received as

          something presentable to even give to the client, so

15:18     I have to say to him that it didn't go out to tender.

          I'm sorry.

      Q.  Insofar as my previous question, I retract that, because

          you did mention in paragraph 47 that you recall Bill

          telling you that he was looking to open for business

          sometime in October 2006.  Apologies.

      A.  Mm-hmm.

      Q.  Okay, coming back to this -- how, Mr Poole, are you

          looking at something or can I ask you a question?

      A.  Yes, I was trying to find the reference to the email

          where I notified them that I had sent out all the

          drawings to SKL Interiors.  I still can't find it.

      Q.  Okay, let's assume it is there.

              Can I just ask you the next question?  You sent an

          email to them; right?

      A.  Mm-hmm.

      Q.  No tender document; right?

      A.  No -- you are talking about to The Pump Room?

      Q.  Is the document that you are looking for in page 110 of

          your affidavit?

      A.  110.  Yes, yes, that's the one.  It says both -- okay,

          the first line doesn't mean anything.

              "William and Fabian have been issued all current

          drawings.  Now we are awaiting prices.  About 90 per

          cent of the FF+E sheets are completed and have also been

15:20     sent out for prices.  William is from Mason Works.

          Fabian is from SKL Interior.

      Q.  Now, all you have given to these two were drawings;

          right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  I know you have done the drawings; I'm not disputing

          that.  Tender documents, contractual terms with annexed

          drawings listed as extra, as I showed you, what you were

          supposed to do under the contract; that was not done,

          right?

      A.  The drawings are the contract documents.

      Q.  Obviously, if you send drawings to someone they may not

          be able to quote, isn't it?  Just drawings alone?

      A.  Of course not, because you need to interview the

          contractors to help them understand what's required.

      Q.  You see, Mason Works can do it because they are in close

          rapport with you.

      A.  They were also aware of the site.  If a contractor

          looked at the floor plan -- say, for instance, I sent

          out to Fabian and he has never been inside a restricted

          zone within Clarke Quay, behind the hoarding, and then

          getting the key to get into the actual Pump Room site.

              When you look at the floor plan, you would not know

          that part of the ceiling is only two and a half metres

          high.  Some of it is 3, and there is an area that's 12.8

15:21     metres high.

              The contractor must know that data in order to do a

          proper quotation.  He must view the site.

      Q.  And did you give those data and information to them?

      A.  I gave -- Fabian was invited over and I showed him

          around before he was able to give his numbers.

      Q.  You say so, but anyway, I put it to you, you never

          complied with your contractual terms in doing a proper

          tender and inviting people for tender at a level playing

          field.

      A.  You say I didn't.  I say I did.

      Q.  You did.  Between these two people, obviously only

          Mason Works can take on the job under these

          circumstances; am I right?  You see, you were close and

          in fact in collusion with Mason Works.  If it's no, just

          say no.

      A.  No.

      Q.  Now, let's come to this, much aggrieved by my client --

          the quotation?

      A.  Can you give me the definition of what collusion is?

      Q.  Sorry?

      A.  Can you give me the definition of collusion?

      Q.  It will become clear in my next few questions.

      MR ONG:  May it please your Honour, I must point out that in

          the statement of claim there has been no pleading of

15:23     collusion, conspiracy and so on.

      Q.  No "conspiracy", correct.  "Collusion" has been used in

          my further and better particulars, furnished to the

          1sth defendant's solicitors.

      COURT:  Do you accept that as a pleading?

      MR VIJAY:  I have mentioned that, collusion.

      MR ONG:  It cannot be, your Honour, I'm sorry.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  May it please your Honour, on this issue,

          with the indulgence of Mr Tan, this matter had --

      MR VIJAY:  No, your Honour, I cannot be confronted with

          three solicitors on two matters, and either one of them

          decide.  If Eugene is doing it, I think Eugene does it.

              If you have anything, if you are assisting him --

          it's very difficult for me, your Honour, three of them.

      COURT:  (unclear -- simultaneous speakers) evidence of

          collusion --

      MR VIJAY:  I said that it was pleaded.

      COURT:  -- from your witnesses.  If not, do you want to open

          up a new front, really?

      MR VIJAY:  By "collusion" -- he wants a definition.  I said

          you are working --

      A.  I am sorry, but I don't know what it means.

      MR TAN:  Your Honour --

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, could I just save time by retracting

          the question, and if need be I will put it later.

15:24         Now, can I refer you to page 36, please?

      A.  Of ...?

      Q.  Sorry, this is Lee Ka Ming's affidavit.  That's the

          2nd defendant.  Lee Ka Ming's affidavit.  It's page 36.

              Sorry, your Honour, because I'm looking at the

          original.  I think I have the wrong bundle.  It's some

          kind of --

      MR ONG:  If you look at page 170 in the 2nd defendant's

          bundle of affidavits --

      A.  Okay, is it a text page?

      MR VIJAY:  I'm sorry, your Honour, because this was

          renumbered by my learned friend --

      MR ONG:  I was referring to the text.  I think you are

          referring to the exhibit, that's why.

      MR VIJAY:  Yes, 187.  Have you got the page?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  13 of the quotation.

      A.  Page 13 of the quotation?

      Q.  Yes, look at the bottom.

      A.  That's all way down at -- that's page 200.

      Q.  Page 200, please.

              So this is the quotation that you were asked to help

          out; right?

      A.  Yeah, to look at.

      Q.  And you went through it with whom, William or Wan?

15:27 A.  I believe it was with William.

      Q.  And at the end of the day, you came up with this figure

          of 400 over thousand?

      A.  No.  Excuse me, I didn't come up with that figure.

          Mason Works did.

      Q.  Can I refer you to page --

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, may I trouble -- your Honour, may

          I have five minute just to -- because this was the

          document -- just to correct the numbers?  Otherwise,

          I will be disturbing your Honour.  I apologise, because

          I'm following the original.

      COURT:  Let's give our court reporters a five-minute break,

          then.

      (3.29 pm)

                             (Short break)

      (3.58 pm)

      MR VIJAY:  May it please your Honour, I was going to refer

          the witness to page 213.

      COURT:  You said you will finish by this evening.

      MR VIJAY:  I will, your Honour.  During the short break

          I have edited.

      COURT:  We could stay a little later, if needs be.

      MR VIJAY:  If I may proceed, your Honour.

      COURT:  Yes.

      MR VIJAY:  Page 213.

15:59 A.  Yes.

      Q.  So at the end of your review, you reduced the sum to

          452,162.47 before GST; correct?

      A.  Mason Works reduced their quote, yes.

      Q.  Were you or were you not involved in the reduction?

      A.  I was involved in the -- yes, I was, but in the aspect

          of either changing the design, re-specifying materials

          or changing methods of construction in order to reduce

          the overall cost.  I had nothing to do with the pricing

          of the items; that's what I'm saying.

      Q.  What did you have to do?  Just changing the --

      A.  Well, can I use an example?  We had a finish on the

          front face of the bar that was made of fibreglass, and

          it was deemed to expensive so we changed it to a black

          concrete tile, which reduced the cost by thousands of

          dollars, thousands, with minimal impact on the overall

          design.

              That's what my job was to do, reduce --

      Q.  So in terms of money, there is a reduction of

          118,000-odd dollars.  118,400.  How much of it was your

          job?  How much of the reduction from the 118,400 was

          your work?

      A.  I don't know if you could quantify that.  I don't think

          you could quantify that.

      Q.  Do you have anything to do with this figure of 570,562

16:01     being reduced to 452,000?

      A.  Yes, of course we had something to do with it, yes.

      Q.  So I'm repeating, did you work together with Mason Works

          to reduce this amount?

      A.  Yes, we did.

      Q.  Yes, and having worked together, you say the amount has

          been reduced to 452 before GST?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Right.  To quote Mason Works, reduce to a lower figure?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Right.

      A.  Yes, by making design changes.

      Q.  Right.  Now, did you really reduce the figure?

      A.  I don't know, because my goal was to look at the overall

          costs and make design changes for reduction.  The

          overall numbers, Mason Works was then attributing the

          cost to those after discussion.

      Q.  Just give me a clear, simple answer.  Did you in reality

          and in truth reduce the amount by 118,000?

      A.  I believe so.

      Q.  You believe so.  Look at page 213 of the 2nd defendant's

          bundle of affidavits.  Have you got that?

      A.  The same bundle?

      Q.  Yes, the same page, in fact, 213?

      A.  Mm-hmm.

16:02 Q.  Now, there is a provisional sum of items at the bottom,

          marked as 12.0?

      A.  12.0, yes, provisional sum.

      Q.  12.1, it says: "Provisional sum for labour and material

          to fabricate and clad selected column with fibrous glass

          cladding".

      A.  Right.

      Q.  And it says, "6 pieces, 6,000 dollars"?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  I'm just reading, Mr Poole.

      A.  Mm-hmm.

      Q.  Now, can I refer you back to page 190, item 3.10,

          "Provisional sum for labour and material to fabricate",

          et cetera, et cetera?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  6 pieces, 1,000, 6,000 dollars?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Correct?

      A.  You confirm they are the same item?

      Q.  So what you are effectively doing --

      A.  I need to explain.  That is my marking.

      Q.  No, let me ask the question first.

              You are effectively just taking out from the 500

          list and putting it under the provisional sum.  Now

          explain.

16:04 A.  Okay.  That is my notation on -- and that arrow saying

          "up" next to the number 6,000, that's indicating when we

          are going through the numbers that the price is way too

          high, that I have suspicions that we can do it lower.

          When he redid the quote, the provisional sum was left at

          the same amount, but in the end what was built is

          Mason Works never even built these columns; it was taken

          out of his contract in the end and given to

          SKL Interior.  That number was obliterated totally from

          the contract because his price was too high.

              And when I mention SKL previously, one of their

          numbers in their uncompleted quote had a number much

          lower for the fibreglass columns.  So I called up SKL

          and said, "Can you do the columns for us?"  And then

          later they did.

      Q.  You are going all over the place.  My question is

          simply --

      A.  No, I am not.  I am explaining --

      Q.  That all happened later.

      A.  -- the provisional sum.

      Q.  Mr Poole, all those later contractors, didn't do the

          job, another contractor came in, all that was subsequent

          events.  I am talking about 8 September 2006 or

          10 September 2006 when you sat down to reduce this

          amount, all you did was to take it out from the 500,000

16:05     and just hide it under the provisional sum.

      A.  No, it wasn't hidden.  It was taken out and moved into

          provisional sum because it was eventually going to be

          taken out of their contract altogether.

              I don't know how Mason Works does their accounting

          and how they are adding up the numbers and all that.

          All I know is, when I was approached to cut the cost,

          I knew a better way to reduce some of these numbers

          down, and in some cases without even changing the design

          concept whatsoever.  So I did what I had to do.  And

          I talked to the client and I said, "Let's take this out

          of Mason Works' contract and give it to somebody else."

          And then they did it.

      Q.  Mr Poole, on the day, 8 September 2006, you made no

          deduction or reduction with this item; right?  On this

          date?

      A.  On this date?  Of course not on this date.

      Q.  Right.  And the same will go for 12.2, "Provisional sum

          for supply and install approved carpet to private area",

          right?

      A.  Mmm.

      Q.  If I take you back to page 191, item 4.10, "Provisional

          sum for supply and install of approved carpet to private

          area, 2,800?

      A.  Yes.

16:07 Q.  So all you are doing is taking from the 500,000 and

          hiding it under provisional sum items, and thereby

          causing a reduction?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Tell me, what else were you doing?

      A.  I am not here to analyse Mason Works's accounting

          practices.  That wasn't my job.  My job was to reduce

          the cost in the design aspect and get the best value.

          We call it in the industry -- the standard term is

          called "value engineering", when you can take a project,

          when you have the overall picture, and figure out a way

          to get it to look just as good at less cost.

      Q.  Mr Poole, please cut all your theory out.  Tell me what

          you are doing on that particular day.

      A.  I'm not doing this.  It's Mason Works.

      Q.  It's not you doing it?

      A.  No, it's Mason Works.

      Q.  So now it's -- you abandoned yourself in this?

      A.  No, I did what I had to do, and then he did what he had

          to do.

      Q.  Don't you think it is --

      A.  I am not going to question Mason Works' work.

      Q.  Don't you think, by doing that, you know, by doing that,

          you are giving a wrong impression to the customer, to

          your client, so your client thinks it was reduced from

16:08     470 to 440; right?  Isn't that the impression the client

          will get?

      A.  I'm telling you, later on some of those items were taken

          out.  When you are talking about 4.10, I never

          installed --

      Q.  Later on, a lot of things happened, Mr Poole.  I can

          take you through that but it's not going to get us

          anywhere.  We are talking about your reduction exercise

          on the 8th or 10th or 12th September 2006.

      A.  Do we have until midnight to go over every single item

          and figure out where the reductions were?  Do you want

          to go through item by item?

      Q.  On the 12th --

      A.  The LED lights, the number of LED lights, where they are

          placed on every floor, every length of LED light in the

          bar counter; do you want to go through all that?

      Q.  Mr Poole, in any construction, as the days go by there

          will be changes.  That doesn't prove you any way.  I am

          asking you questions about what happened on that day

          when you claimed you reduced by a hundred over thousand.

              You were deceiving the customer, full-stop.  Now you

          are saying it's Mason Works and not you.  That's all

          your answer is, isn't it?

      A.  I'm not saying Mason Works deceived the customer.

      Q.  Then did you deceive?

16:09 A.  No, of course not.

      Q.  Then why are you doing all this, putting it under

          provisional?

      A.  It's under a letterhead under Mason Works' work.  It's

          not my company.  But I am saying, as far as I know,

          Mason Works did not deceive the customer, and neither

          did I.

      Q.  Mr Poole, you were in close contact with Mason Works

          throughout, isn't it, from 2006, May/June onwards?  Was

          there a gap when you and they never met and didn't have

          contact?

      COURT:  What does that prove?

      MR VIJAY:  I'm going to another point, your Honour.

      COURT:  Well, get to the other point.

      MR VIJAY:  I have finished with that point, your Honour, I'm

          sorry, I didn't make it clear.  I'm trying to keep to my

          promise of timing, your Honour.

              Did you meet up with Mason Works, since, let's say,

          May/June?

      A.  There were many meetings; dozens of meetings.

      Q.  Of course, and you have many projects in common; right?

      A.  A few.

      Q.  When The Pump Room works were going on, were you not in

          close contact with them?  You had to be, right?

      A.  Of course, because --

16:10 Q.  Yes, and are you telling me, throughout this close

          contact, they never even whispered to you about any of

          the variations in The Pump Room?

      COURT:  Any of their what?

      MR VIJAY:  Variations.  All the subsequent variations to the

          quotations, your Honour.

              There were so many variations, 1, 2, 3, then another

          series of variations, 1, 2, 3, about --

      A.  No, why would they?  Why would they involve me in what

          the air-conditioning cost when it's not any part of my

          job, except overlooking the plan at the very beginning.

      Q.  Why would they --

      A.  They wouldn't want me to.

      Q.  But why would they keep it away from you?  Look at it

          the other way: any reason why they wouldn't tell you

          about what's going on?  You were just conveniently

          saying you did not know, right, Mr Poole?  But it is not

          realistic, is it?

      A.  Why would I be interested --

      COURT:  Are you asking a question or making comments?

      MR VIJAY:  Yes, your Honour, I am putting it as a question.

              Am I right in my comment and observation?

          Mr Sreenivasan would like to answer for you.

      COURT:  One person to speak at one time.

              Yes.

16:11 A.  Okay, why would I be interested in the price of steel?

          I am not interested in the price of steel or how much it

          would cost to dig 32 metres down.

      Q.  Let us move on.

      A.  I am interested in furniture and tile.

      COURT:  We will move on.

      MR VIJAY:  You will take a personal interest in whether

          Mason Works were actually paid for their work; am I

          right?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Why not?

      A.  Because, again, they are their own company.  I have my

          own company.  Why would I be interested?

      Q.  Have you ever chased The Pump Room to say, "Hey, pay up

          to Mr Wan from Mason Works"?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Never?

      A.  No, I don't think so, no.  Why would I be involved in --

      COURT:  What is the purpose of this line of questioning

          (unclear -- simultaneous speakers).

      MR VIJAY:  I'm just trying to show the -- I have come to the

          tail end, your Honour.  Can I just refer him to his own

          email where he asks for money on behalf of Wan?

      COURT:  Sure.

      MR VIJAY:  To show the closeness, and how he would possibly

16:13     not know about the quotations is unbelievable.

      COURT:  Well, he knows about the variations; what is the

          point you are trying to make?

      MR VIJAY:  If he knows about the variations, then I say that

          he has a duty to look through them and verify --it is

          his job.

      COURT:  It doesn't follow, you know.

      MR VIJAY:  Sorry, your Honour?

      COURT:  His duty comes from his contract.  Just because you

          know, it doesn't follow that you have a duty.  That's

          why -- what worries me about this line of questioning.

      MR VIJAY:  Okay.

              Mr Poole, one area of concern.  Mr Poole, you work

          as a project manager or designer, right, do you do any

          other jobs, just for clarification?

      A.  As I said, we have done to date about 500.

      Q.  All similar projects?

      A.  No, vastly different from one another.

      Q.  And you are paid a fee for your work, right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  You don't collect submissions, right?

      A.  No.

      Q.  Can I refer to you page 34, volume 2, of the bundle of

          emails?

      A.  Which bundle?

16:14 Q.  The pink one, volume 2, page 334.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  This is a letter you wrote to Phil Robinson on 27 April

          2007.  You say that because Bill is threatening to sue

          you or your company you have decided not to accept any

          commissions under Singapore law.  What are these

          commissions you are referring to?

      A.  First, can I -- can we explain the relationship of

          what's going on with who Phil is?

      Q.  It doesn't matter.  The important thing is what are

          these commissions.

      A.  Pardon?

      Q.  What are these commissions?

      A.  I have decided not to accept any commissions.  That

          means (unclear -- simultaneous speakers).

      COURT:  One person at a time.  The poor court reporters

          cannot follow you all.

      A.  Sorry.  Now I understand what you are saying is the word

          commission.  It means, in this term, any interior design

          contracts.  Commissions, contracts.

      Q.  Do you get -- sorry, commissions are what from

          contracts?

      A.  In this instance, it's referring to any further

          contracts.

      Q.  No, it says "commissions".

16:16 MR TAN:  Your Honour, I have to object because I don't see

          where this line is questioning is going.

      MR VIJAY:  I have only one question.

      MR TAN:  With great respect to my learned friend, none of

          these allegations are pleaded.  If this is being brought

          in for the purpose of the 3rd defendant, to show the

          veil of -- that has been dropped, and I hope Mr Vijay

          has some point that he is making in this line of

          cross-examination questions.

      MR VIJAY:  Only one, were any commission payments from

          the Pump Room --

      COURT:  What is the relevance of that?

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, I would like to -- I know my

          learned friend says "one at a time", but this is a point

          of English language.  You commission an architect.

      MR VIJAY:  (unclear -- simultaneous speakers) my question.

          Please object.  (Unclear -- simultaneous speakers).

      COURT:  Please --

      MR VIJAY:  You see, your Honour, he is giving the answers to

          the witness, with respect.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  No, the witness has answered it, saying

          that commission means a job.  My learned friend has

          ignored that, and my learned friend knows that to

          commission somebody to do a job is common English usage.

              I think my learned friend has got to the point of

16:17     bullying the witness and playing to the galley.

      MR VIJAY:  No, no, I didn't do that.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  I think you did.

      MR VIJAY:  No, I think they did that to my clients.  I was

          very polite.

      MR ONG:  Your Honour, perhaps I would state the

          2nd defendant's objection to this line of questioning

          because my learned friend is insinuating that my clients

          are paying commissions to the 3rd defendant.

      MR VIJAY:  That's not true --

      MR ONG:  Not only is that not pleaded, it is also perfectly

          scandalous.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  It should be withdrawn.

      COURT:  Mr Vijay, is it true that you are trying to advance

          that?

      MR VIJAY:  I just want to ask him, because he's mentioned

          commission.  I leave it at that.  If your Honour thinks

          I should not ask, okay, I am quite happy to drop it.

      COURT:  No, I don't want curtail the cross-examination but

          it has to be relevant.

      MR VIJAY:  I mean, the witness is very -- he is

          a professional; he has an architecture degree.  I am

          sure he can say it's all not true.  Why does he need the

          three lawyers to answer for him.  A simple question.

          Just say not true.

16:18 MR SREENIVASAN:  Because you are not being straight in your

          question.

      MR VIJAY:  Why is he so reluctant to just say no?

      COURT:  So what is your question?

      MR VIJAY:  My question, your Honour, is, earlier on he said

          he doesn't receive any commission, only fees.  So

          I wanted to know what is this commission referring to.

          And my interest --

      COURT:  Stop there.  Do you want to answer?

      A.  Yes, in some cases in the industry, like when -- say you

          buy furniture from like a very large manufacturer, if an

          architect or interior designer specifying for a client,

          sometimes the manufacturer actually gives a discount

          called a commission to the designer, but we make it very

          clear in our contracts and with our clients that, when

          we have a negotiated fee and that becomes fixed in our

          contract, that, if there are any commissions offered to

          the designer for the purchase of anything, it always

          goes back to the clients.

      COURT:  All right.  Next question.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, the next question is equally

          controversial.

              Can I refer you to page 256 of the same bundle.

          Here, first of all, you are writing to Fabian to say

          that his price is the same as Mason Works, but, however,

16:19     you will give the contract to William, because William

          is able to offer 50 per cent of the 10,000 as contra

          payment by way of whisky.

              Question, does this relates to The Pump Room?

      A.  Yes, it does.

      Q.  Why are you collecting fees by way of whisky?

      A.  No, what I'm doing is I am trying to get the price down

          lower for the client, because, when Fabian issued his

          price for the fibreglass, the legs -- when I refer to

          for the legs, that means table legs in the restaurant,

          but there were many other fibreglass items --

          Mason Works was countering, saying that he would take

          a contra, to lower his fees, so basically what it is I'm

          bartering a bidding war to lower the price by this

          email, it's saying Mason Works wants to get the job, but

          Fabian also wants to get the job, so --

      Q.  And both of them --

      A.  -- (simultaneous speakers - unclear) -- to get the price

          lower so that the client saves more money.  That's what

          it's about.

      Q.  I thought your first line says the price is the same.

      A.  For the legs only, but there were many other portions

          that contract, of that portion of the work, so it's just

          the leg portion, the legs.

      Q.  What you say doesn't gel or doesn't tally with what's in

16:20     the email, right?  Here you're categorically saying that

          William was given the contract because he was able to

          offer 50 per cent of the 10,000 as contra payment by way

          of whisky.

      A.  So what are you asking again?  Can you repeat the

          question?

      Q.  Maybe I can ask you another question.  When the prices

          were the same with Fabian and Mason Works, what was the

          reason for the preference to Mason Works?  Was it the --

      A.  There was no --

      Q.  Was it the whisky?

      A.  There was no preference to Mason Works.  It says down

          here -- the last line:

              "As I mentioned last Saturday, your quote" -- that's

          written to Fabian, SKL -- "for the fibreglass columns

          and legs at The Pump Room has been accepted."

              The client accepted the quote because, when you look

          at it in total, the columns were less, the legs were the

          same, so the client took Fabian's quote because the

          bottom line is lower, but now I'm going back to Fabian

          and saying he's willing to reduce the legs even more to

          try to beat his price, even though the client has

          accepted.

              So what happened in the end -- what happened in the

          end, Fabian got the job, he did the job and then, you

16:22     know, when introducing with Bill, Fabian -- even though

          he had a contract to pay -- The Pump Room was contracted

          to pay Fabian a certain amount of money, he then even

          further reduced his price at the end and gave a discount

          to help save them even more money after the job was

          installed.

      MR VIJAY:  Those are all what you say happened

          subsequently --

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, I'm objecting for a simple

          ground.  Is it my learned friend's instructions that

          Fabian didn't get the job?  Because he is suggesting

          that this witness gave the job to Mason Works for some

          kind of pay off.  Now my learned friend knows or his

          clients know --

      COURT:  It's the not pleaded.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Not only that, your Honour, because this is

          the point I'm making about playing to the gallery, my

          learned friend knows, because his clients paid Fabian,

          that the job did not go to Mason Works, and when

          a solicitor knows that the job didn't go, you don't make

          that kind of suggestion just because gentlemen of the

          press are present.

      MR VIJAY:  I didn't make any -- (unclear -- simultaneous

          speakers) -- I asked him to explain his own email and

          Mr Sreenivasan is trying very hard to provide the

16:23     answers for him, and if you --

      MR SREENIVASAN:  No --

      MR VIJAY:  --  (simultaneous speakers - unclear) -- that

          work went to Fabian --

      COURT:  One at a time.

      MR SREENIVASAN:  Sorry, your Honour.

              If my learned friend is making that kind of

          allegation without instructions or contrary to his

          instructions, then that issue will have to be resolved,

          and, if need be, we will recall The Pump Room's

          directors, ask them point blank that whether the legs

          and the fibreglass columns were or were not given to

          SKL Interior, because we know for a fact that it was not

          and that suggestion should not be made.

      COURT:  Let us not lose sight of what the plaintiff's claim

          is, all right.  Are you suggesting he didn't do his work

          properly or what?

      MR VIJAY:  Yes.  Our case is that he was a project manager,

          and he did not do his work as required under the

          contract and/or negligently or misleading the client as

          I showed in the 500,000, and not -- et cetera.

              That's all.  I asked him to explain.  I never

          insinuated anything.  If he admits that his

          commission -- even the earlier question, it is he who

          explained that's from products and all that.  I just

16:24     asked him an open-ended question.  There was no --

      MR ONG:  May it please your Honour, related to the pleading

          point that it was not pleaded, if I may point out to

          your Honour, this document which my learned friend

          relies for his incisive cross-examination was in fact

          from his agreed bundle that he has provided a long time

          ago, if he wanted to make this allegation that the

          3rd defendant is receiving some sort of payoff from my

          client he really had more than ample opportunity to

          plead so and say so, so that we have a chance to examine

          the plaintiff's witness when we had the opportunity --

      COURT:  -- (unclear -- simultaneous speakers) -- or secret

          profits, so let's leave it at that.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, if I may move on.  I will (unclear)

          your Honour.  I will just go through the question of

          delay.

              Mr Poole, it is in the terms of contract that one of

          the terms was what was discussed at meetings early 2006;

          am I right?

              One of the terms says -- one of the conditions --

          one of the terms was as discussed at meetings in early

          2006?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  That incorporated?

      A.  Yes.

16:26 Q.  In other words, to make it simple, whatever discussions

          you had in May, June, were all incorporated by this

          clause?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  And you have admitted that one of the conditions or one

          of the discussions was that target date to open October

          2006 -- you said so?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Yes.  So would you therefore agree that, by this clause,

          the discussion to complete on the October 2006 becomes

          part of the contract?

      A.  No -- no, it cannot.  It's impossible.

      Q.  Why?

      A.  Because there are other consultants involved that -- I'm

          not in control of the mechanical engineer, the

          mechanical permit, the structural engineer, the

          architects' submissions, the architectural submission,

          the building of the project -- there is no way my

          company ever can commit to a deadline.

      Q.  But if -- I know you are denying the position you're

          project manager, otherwise we'll go back to the same

          arguments.

              I am asking the question on the assumption of my

          case that, if you are the project manager, if you are

          the project manager then you would be responsible for

16:27     the timelines and delay, right?

      A.  If I was --

      Q.  If --

      A.  For the entire scope --

      Q.  -- our case is correct, then you would be responsible?

      A.  Well, again, even a project manager, you know, how can

          he control when RSP is submitting their drawing and how

          can he control, you know, how long it takes somebody

          within the government BCA to chop a drawing and then

          return it back?

              The project manager can't commit to a date, a firm

          date.  They can estimate within industry practice, but

          nobody can confirm an absolute date, that's an

          impossibility.

      Q.  You see, under the contract, you had power to appoint

          consultants, structural engineers and charge it to

          The Pump Room, right?

      A.  Correct, it allows for that, yes.

      Q.  So, if there were problems, you had these provisions to

          solve the problem?

      A.  I think it's never been mentioned that when there is the

          situation of The Pump Room hiring RSP, there was no

          choice, they had to hire RSP, because it's part of their

          lease agreement.

              With the complex nature of Clarke Quay, you had

16:28     a submitting architect doing the architectural work and

          also the structural work and grossly -- not grossly,

          that's the wrong term -- radically changing the

          structures of these buildings.

              No other submitting architect or engineer was

          allowed to do it.  When you signed a lease agreement

          with Clarke Quay you had to hire RSP.  There was no

          choice.

      Q.  Did you have any objection to the appointment of the

          RSP, or did you have anyone else that you wanted to --

      A.  Of course not --

      Q.  That was not an issue.

              Timelines; with your 16 years of experience, would

          you agree with me that restaurants, pubs, are always in

          a desperate hurry to complete their renovation, as

          compared to domestic?

      A.  In the Singapore market -- yes, they are --

      Q.  Because every day they are losing not only rental but

          salaries of staff, all other overheads.

      A.  If I can speak freely, it's because Singapore landlords

          put very, very tough restrictions on paying rents.

      Q.  And from your experience would you agree with me that

          normal timeframe is about two to three months -- maybe

          add one month more for the brewery, or exclude the

          brewery -- in all fairness, you had only done one other

16:30     brewery.

      A.  It depends on the landlord.  For some buildings the

          landlord will give you a longer time period before you

          have to pay your rent, but Capital Land is very tough,

          they give a very short time period.

      Q.  Okay.  I put it to you that you were employed and

          appointed by The Pump Room to be their project manager

          and, of course, designer.  I'm putting to you.  You can

          agree or disagree.  I am rounding up my case.

      A.  For my scope of work -- yes, for my scope of work.

      Q.  And I'm putting to you that you have been in breach of

          these contractual obligations?

      A.  No.

      Q.  I'm putting to you that you have neglected your job as

          the project manager?

      A.  No.

      Q.  I'm also putting to you that you have misled the

          customer?

      A.  No.

      Q.  You have let down your customer who engaged you for your

          professional standing, relying on your expertise and

          guidance?

      A.  No.

      MR VIJAY:  I have no other questions.

      COURT:  Thank you, yes.  Do you have any re-examination?

16:32                   Re-examination by MR TAN

      A.  Am I allowed to clarify something at the moment?

      MR TAN:  I will ask the questions and you can clarify.

              Now, Mr Poole, you were cross-examined at length by

          my learned friend here on correspondence copied to

          Mason Works in the months of June and July, prior to the

          contract being signed between The Pump Room and

          Mason Works.

      A.  Mm-hmm.

      Q.  Can you explain to the court why you were copying

          Mason Works in the correspondence, even though the

          contract had not been awarded yet?

      A.  Because I was asked to by the client.

      Q.  My learned friend also has gone on at length about the

          lack of a tender and my question to you is this; did

          William Graham or any of the directors in The Pump Room

          complain about receiving only one quotation?

      A.  No, they did not.

      Q.  Your attention was also brought to the term "negotiated

          contract" and whether or not you had carried out

          a negotiated contract, your answer was "yes".

              Can you explain to the court what a negotiated

          contract is and how you carried it out in this instance?

      A.  The negotiated contracts in my scope of works involved

          a multitude of different suppliers, providing FF+E

16:34     products to The Pump Room for furniture, the chairs, the

          tables, the bar, the wood, tile, granite, a lot of wood

          planking, concrete tiles, and all these came from

          a multitude of factories from many different countries.

              So I helped them to organise and for them to

          understand what they had to do in order to make those

          orders happen.

              A lot of countries -- a lot of suppliers that are

          based in Indonesia refuse to even put the goods in

          a container until they have payment in full, so a lot of

          clients feel very nervous about that, so I have to

          explain to them that's it's part of their contract that

          they won't do the work unless the payment is made, so if

          the cheques didn't go, the goods wouldn't be there, and

          The Pump Room wouldn't open.

              So that was the part of negotiating contracts on

          their behalf by the small subsuppliers for the FF+E.

      Q.  You were also asked whether you forwarded any contract

          documents to Mason Works, and your answer was "yes".

          Can you explain what these contract documents were?

      A.  The drawings.

      Q.  And you also referred to about 100 pages of documents,

          what are these documents again?

              You referred during your cross-examination to

          bundles of documents, 100 pages?

16:35 A.  They are not in here (unclear -- coughing) in here.

          I said -- I think I said something of the -- referring

          to hundreds of emails back and forth.

      Q.  Can you explain to the court what a provisional sum item

          is, Mr Poole?

      A.  Okay.  In a case like this, because it was very rushed,

          the structure -- sorry, not the structure, the

          mechanical engineer, when he is designing the aircon

          system for the dining room and the toilets, cannot do

          his work until the floor plan is frozen, otherwise he's

          spinning his wheels and having doing everything over

          many times.

              So the ball starts to roll once the floor plan is

          approved by the client, and is also approved by RSP so

          that it can go in for submission, and when that drawing

          is issued, it cannot be changed, there's nothing you can

          do about it, it must stay the same otherwise you

          compromise your submission process and can cause delay.

              So, as soon as the floor plan was frozen, the

          drawings were given to Mason Works to quote and also to

          SKL, but the engineers now don't have any time to do the

          mechanical work, so Mason Works can -- any contractor

          should be able to give a basic -- "provisional sum"

          means a really rough estimate, about how much it might

          cost for that part of the job to be completed, but they

16:37     can't commit to it until they get the engineering

          drawings, so they put the number in so that the client

          understands that there has to be -- there's going to be

          more money having to be paid out for these items.

              So that's what provisional sum is for; there are

          unknowns at the time which will later be cleared up.  It

          can also mean some items that are not fully designed.

      Q.  Let's take a look at page 213 of the 2nd defendant's

          affidavit of evidence-in-chief.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  It has a thick blue spine, the 2nd defendant bundle's of

          affidavits of evidence-in-chief.  I ask you to turn to

          page 213.  You will see at item 12.0 "Provisional sum

          items"?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Can you explain again what these provisional sum items

          mean and how they relate to the entire contract?

      A.  Okay.  Well, once the job was going further along --

          I just give an example of, say, what 12.1 means; in The

          Pump Room there were about four units joined together,

          and the columns within the space are extremely erratic,

          so when we are going through the process, we realise

          that we cannot make any sense out of the order of the

          structure of the building, the physical columns that are

          already there, so we identified in the process that we

16:39     want to turn this bad aspect into a positive for the

          client.

              So we determined that the columns need to be

          a special design aspect that gives the job its identity,

          and at the time we were going through this one idea of

          cladding the columns with fibreglass, but it wasn't

          100 per cent set what it was going to be, so it was

          a provisional sum.

              Then say in the case of, say, 12.4, there was

          provision for a construction of a U-shaped

          hostess cashier counter.  In my floor plan I thought the

          owner would need to have a cashier station near the

          front door, but it wasn't confirmed by the client yet,

          so we wanted to put it in so that we didn't have to go

          back and say, "We need some more money to do the cashier

          station", so we had it on the floor plan, but it wasn't

          confirmed by the client yet.

      Q.  Okay.  Let's pause there.

              Let's look at page 190 of the same bundle of

          documents, item 3.10, which you were referred to

          earlier.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  This is Mason Works' first quotation on 8 September

          2006?

      A.  Correct.

16:41 Q.  Do you know why it's been included at 3.10 here?

      A.  Why it's included?

      Q.  Do you know why?

      A.  Well, because we wanted to have the columns to be done

          in fibreglass cladding.

      Q.  And at that point in time was the sum fixed for this

          item?

      A.  Fixed?  No, it says "provisional sum", it was estimated,

          because at the time it was only a concept idea.

      Q.  I see.  So would I be correct to say that provisional

          sum items are just estimated figures?

      A.  Yes, basically they are estimated.  The ultimate goal is

          that the client wants to know how much it's going to

          cost, so if you give him a number, if you give him a

          number to like, say, build this room, but you forget all

          the furniture, they're not getting a clear picture.  You

          have to allow for the furniture even though you don't

          know what it's going to be, especially on a very rushed

          job like this.

              We have to have provisional sums so that the client

          knows what the bottom line is going to be.

      Q.  Let's talk about your contract.  You were referred to

          it.  Maybe it would be easier if I just refer to your

          affidavit.  It's at page 82 of your affidavit.

              You said that it was drafted with the assistance of

16:43     lawyers?

      A.  The contract?

      Q.  The contract, yes.  What I wanted to know was, was this

          contract drafted specifically for this project --

      A.  No, it was not, it's a standard contract form.

      Q.  Were there any changes in this contract from the other

          contracts, your other standard term contracts?

      A.  Well, we have blanks that we fill in, like the project

          name, the client name, if there is a budget, who the

          other consultants might be in the area, the scope, the

          start and move in, and then in some cases -- well, in

          the majority of cases when we work overseas, of course,

          a lot of these paragraphs have to be stricken out

          because they have nothing to do with Singapore law, or

          there are other specific requirements.

              But it generally is just a blanket contract to

          explain to the client what we're going to do and it also

          explains what they have to do.

      Q.  You were also referred I believe to page 85 of the

          agreed bundle of documents -- you don't have to flip to

          it.  I'll just tell you what it is.  It's the general

          notes.

              Was this document prepared specifically or were the

          terms of that prepared specifically for the project as

          well?

16:44 A.  No.  Again, it starts out as a very basic common form,

          and then a couple of lines are filled in when we know --

          like some landlords don't allow trucks to enter

          a building or, you know, only working at night -- if you

          are building a project next to an open restaurant, you

          can't work during lunch time or dinner, so those kinds

          of things have been plugged into those general notes for

          that specific job, but 95 per cent -- 98 per cent is

          common generalities.

      Q.  And what is the purpose of these general notes?

      A.  It's basically to cover misbehaviour by the contractor,

          because, you know, there have been cases of workmen

          using a construction site as a gambling den, things like

          that.  It covers that.  Don't use the site illegally.

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

              May the witness be released.

      COURT:  Of course.

                         (The witness withdrew)

      COURT:  That closes the 1st defendant's case?

      MR TAN:  That closes the 1st defendant's case.

      COURT:  And your case will be opened tomorrow.

              I'll see you all in chambers.

      (4.46 pm)

               (The hearing adjourned until 10.00 am on

                      Thursday, 6 November 2008)

 

 

 

 

2013 thepumproom.com | Contact

 

 

StatCounter - Free Web Tracker and Counter  

home