|
Thursday, 30 October 2008
(10.00 am)
(Hearing in
chambers)
(10.10 am)
MR VIJAY: May it please
your Honour, I am Vijay Kumar and
I appear for the
plaintiff. Mr Eugene Tan appears for
the 1st defendant, Mr
Ong Ying Ping appears for the
2nd defendant and Mr
Sreenivasan appears for the
3rd defendant.
MR ONG: Your Honour, I'm
assisted by Ms Susan Tay.
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, we
have an addition to the bundles
that we have prepared.
We have a bundle of pleadings
which consists of 102
pages, your Honour.
May I proceed?
COURT: Yes.
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, we
have prepared an agreed bundle of
documents, four
volumes, your Honour. The last page is
1028.
The agreement is, as
usual, to authenticity and not
to the truth. The
plaintiff has also filed a bundle of
affidavits for
convenience, your Honour. This is in two
volumes: the first
volume contains the affidavit
evidence of William
Graham; and the second volume has
all the other
affidavits, your Honour.
Then, on the
plaintiff's part we have a plaintiff's
10:14 bundle of documents
which for convenience I have put it
as purple in colour in
the cover, your Honour; that has
43 pages.
I will leave it to my
learned friends to tell your
Honour about their
documents are that they filed outside
the agreed bundle.
MR TAN: Your Honour, for
the 1st defendant, we have one
affidavit of
evidence-in-chief, that is the affidavit of
evidence-in-chief of Mr
Edward Poole. Apart from that,
your Honour, we also
have a bundle of documents, that's
titled 1st defendant's
bundle of documents, if I may
just tender a copy to
the court, your Honour. It
comprises 83 pages, your
Honour. Should I have it
marked perhaps as 1DBOD
1 to 83, your Honour?
COURT: Yes.
MR TAN: There is another
thing, your Honour. Ordinarily,
apart from the agreed
bundle the other bundles of
documents are not agreed
as to authenticity for
contents, but these
documents are documents that I have
received from the
plaintiff over the past couple of
days, and what I have
done is I have extracted them, the
ones that I want to use
or intend to rely on, and
I compiled them into
this bundle. So I'm wondering, if
perhaps to clarify
matters, my learned friend is going
to dispute authenticity
for these documents, if not,
10:16 then, I would like to
have it agreed as to authenticity,
your Honour.
MR VIJAY: Your Honour,
these documents were not in the
possession of my
client. We obtained these documents
from RSP, a firm of
architects. They gave these
documents to us very
late in the day, they told us they
would not be prepared to
come to court, and they just
give us a stack of
documents. I immediately sent them
to my learned friends,
even before I could look at them,
because they were
voluminous and they came in very late
and that is the reason
why these were sent to my learned
friends late.
So I'm in this
position, your Honour: I'm not going
out of my way to object
to authenticity, but I reserve
my rights if anything
crops up that is unusual, your
Honour, because they are
not really my clients'
documents. It is what
we got from RSP, and since we
have a duty to disclose,
we did that, your Honour.
MR TAN: It's just that I
want to avoid any issues of having
any proof of
authenticity and if my learned friend can
confirm that he is not
making issue out of it, then
I will just leave it as
that, your Honour.
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, my
difficulty is that my learned
friend only shortlisted
documents -- I have just
received them. Maybe
during the lunch break I can have
10:18 a look and revert to
your Honour.
COURT: All right.
MR TAN: That's all for the
1st defendant, your Honour, in
terms of documents.
MR ONG: May it please your
Honour. For the 2nd defendant,
we have filed before the
court the 2nd defendant's
bundle of affidavits of
evidence-in-chief. It comprises
three affidavits, the
last page is 300. They are the
affidavits of Kenneth
Hugh Jones, the defendant's
expert, Mr Wan Yew Fai,
and Mr Lee Ka Ming.
May they be
admitted, your Honour?
COURT: Yes.
MR ONG: For the documents
before your Honour, I have
tendered two volumes of
the 2nd defendant's bundle of
documents. The first
volume -- does your Honour have
this thicker one -- ends
at page 412?
COURT: All right.
MR ONG: It is made up from
items 1 to 10, the pleadings
that had gone on between
the 2nd defendant and the
plaintiff in this action
in the Subordinate Courts in DC
suit 1406 of 2007; items
11 to item 35 are drawings of
the premises that are
the subject matter of this action,
which have been
discovered upon the request of the
plaintiff and the other
parties.
Item 37 to item 59
are also further items discovered
10:21 in the ongoing process
of discovery. May they be
admitted and marked,
your Honour?
COURT: Yes.
MR ONG: As with Mr Tan,
counsel for the 1st defendant, it
might be appropriate
juncture to confirm with my learned
friend, counsel for the
plaintiff, if it's also agreed
as to authenticity.
COURT: Is it the same
reply?
MR VIJAY: No, not at all,
your Honour, very different.
Mr Tan's position was
entirely different because Mr Tan
was referring to
documents that I assisted in giving to
him.
In the case of my
learned friend here, of course the
documents from the
Subordinate Courts, I have not
touched -- I have no
problem with that. The drawings,
I don't know who they
are but I believe they must be
drawn by one of them --
no problems with that your
Honour. The only
concern I have is all of a sudden I am
confronted with -- I
don't know whether invoices or
quotations from
subcontractors, the latest is Columbo
something Pte Ltd which
I just have sight of the day
before yesterday, as I
told your Honour; the two other
subcontractors just
appeared and I told them that I need
these people. That's
all, your Honour.
COURT: Very well.
10:23 MR ONG: The second bundle,
volume 2 of this 2nd defendant's
bundle of documents, it
is a slimmer volume before your
Honour.
COURT: Yes.
MR ONG: Your Honour, this
bundle ends at page 441, and the
first ten items, numbers
60 to 69, are cheques drawn in
favour of the 2nd
defendant, the first of them being
from the personal
accounts of Mr William Graham and
Mrs Pauline Graham of
the plaintiff.
The balance, items
number 61 to 69, are cheques
drawn on the plaintiff's
own bank account, signed by the
plaintiff's directors.
Items 70 and 71 are
the disputed invoice that
counsel for the
plaintiff mentioned. As I stated before
your Honour earlier,
this was discovered pursuant to the
plaintiff's discovery
despite there being no allegation
ever being made that
this particular subcontractor had
not in fact supplied
steel to the 2nd defendant for an
omitted item in the
course of the works. There has been
no allegation that the
2nd defendant had fraudulently
presumed to charge the
plaintiff for this item, when in
fact they never ordered
it. If the plaintiff does make
it an issue, it should
not be an issue.
Items 72, 73 and 74
are documents discovered after
AEICs had been
exchanged, and these are in fact
10:27 correspondence between
parties or parties'
representatives.
Item 75 to item 82
are part of the same items that
were discovered at the
same time as my learned friend,
counsel for the 1st
defendant -- we received it in one
batch from the
plaintiff, with a last-minute notice that
they were not going to
put this up as evidence before
the court.
So, as with Mr Tan,
we are discovering it for the
purposes of this action.
Assuming it's on the
same understanding, may it be
admitted and marked,
your Honour.
COURT: All right.
MR ONG: That's all, your
Honour.
COURT: Thank you.
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, I
wish to clarify, of course the
cheques -- all the rest
of the documents I don't have
problems with excepting
subcontractors, but I want to
clarify that we are not
challenging the translation
which only came in now.
Of course we are not expecting
them to call a
translator, just to clarify.
As to the relevancy
of this, I leave that for later
submissions, but if it
is not relevant, I wonder why my
learned friend is
putting these documents in in the
first place.
10:29 MR SREENIVASAN: May it
please your Honour. Firstly may
I thank your Honour for
the indulgence.
Your Honour, we only
have two documents. One is the
affidavit of
evidence-in-chief of the third party, which
with your Honour's
leave, when the third party gives
evidence on behalf of
the 1st defendant, subject to your
Honour's direction, we
will adduce that affidavit as
well, rather than
putting him on the stand twice.
We have also put
forward a 3rd defendant's bundle of
documents which consists
of the 3rd defendant's
passport.
Your Honour, we are
not relying on it but this was
a specific request from
the plaintiff. We have acceded
to that request and
therefore are making it available,
I will not mark it, your
Honour, I will leave it to my
learned friend to deal
with it in the course of
cross-examination as he
deems best, your Honour.
COURT: All right.
MR SREENIVASAN: The other
point is regarding the course of
the examination and
cross-examination of witnesses,
I have had a word with
both my learned friends, Mr Tan
for the 1st defendant
and Mr Ong for the 2nd defendant,
instead of just
following the usual order, for each of
the witnesses we would
respectfully be asking your
Honour, when necessary,
to vary the order purely because
10:30 we have carved out
certain areas and certain approaches
and we believe that that
would save a fair bit of time,
either obviating or
shortening the cross-examination.
I believe my learned
friends should have no
objection to that.
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, if
it is with a view to shortening
the time, I certainly
have no objections, but if they
could just inform me of
the sequence then I can
organise my
re-examination.
COURT: All right, are we
ready?
MR VIJAY: Yes, your Honour.
COURT: Your first witness?
MR VIJAY: May I call --
COURT: Do you want to
highlight you opening statement? You
can assume it has been
read.
MR VIJAY: I will just
assume -- unless your Honour wants me
to, I'm prepared just to
put the witness and carry on.
MR PAUL CRISPIN
CASIMIR-MROWCINSKI (affirmed)
Examination-in-chief by MR VIJAY
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, this
witness's affidavit evidence
appears as the last tag
of volume 2 of the bundle of
affidavits of the
plaintiff.
Mr Crispin, do you
have your affidavit, it is
volume 2, right at the
end.
A. Yes, I have it.
10:33 Q. You are Paul Crispin
Casimir-Mrowcinski?
A. Yes.
Q. Your address is 20
Bideford Road, #13-06 Wellington
Building, Singapore
220021, and you are a chartered
building surveyor; do
you confirm?
A. I confirm. I think the
postal code is 229921, from
memory.
Q. Occupation: chartered
building surveyor?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you confirm this is
your affidavit of
evidence-in-chief that
you have filed in this matter,
right up to the end of
the bundle.?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. You have included your
CV on page 8 onwards?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. And your report is at
page 152 onwards, and your
response to Mr Jones'
report is on page 176.
That's all, your
Honour.
Cross-examination by MR SREENIVASAN
MR SREENIVASAN: May it
please you, your Honour, in terms of
the cross-examination of
this witness, I will be having
the main conduct of it
on behalf of the 1st and
3rd defendant. My
learned friend Mr Tan will follow up
if there are any
specific points relating to the
1st defendant, your
Honour.
10:35 MR VIJAY: I'm not
nitpicking. What do you mean by on
behalf -- I suppose the
cross-examination is on behalf
of your clients.
MR SREENIVASAN: I think the
cross-examination is -- I can
do it, Mr Eugene Tan can
do it, then I can repeat it; or
Mr Eugene Tan and I, as
two members of the Bar, can be
sensible and conflate
our areas.
COURT: All right, please
proceed.
MR SREENIVASAN: Mr Crispin,
you were in the University of
Salford from 1981 to
1985; am I right?
A. You are referring to my
CV? Yes.
Q. From 1983 to 1984 you
were an assistant building
surveyor for the NatWest
Bank; am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. So you were part-time
student in the university?
A. Not part-time, it was a
sandwich course.
Q. It was a what?
A. A sandwich course.
Q. I have looked at your
CV, and if you can turn to page 10
of your affidavit, you
have listed your duties under CC
Building Surveyors; am I
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now CC stands -- the
initials arise from your name,
Crispin Casimir; am I
right?
A. Or Crispin Casimir.
10:37 Q. Your duties, item 1,
project management in relation to
rectification works,
this would be things like where --
for example, work that
you have done, tiles falling off
the facade of the
building; am I right?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Or like what you did for
Island View, where you were
supposed to supervise
the works relating to water
ingress; am I right?
A. I can't remember whether
I was supervising; I was
definitely project
managing.
Q. You didn't complete that
project, did you, you had
a dispute with the MCSD?
A. There was a dispute with
the MC which also involved the
contractor and the
managing agent.
Q. Now, you do property
inspections and associated remedial
repair work, am I right,
item 2?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. You inspect buildings in
relation to building defects
and you report and you
prepare reports; am I right?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. You do building audits
-- what is a building audit?
A. A building audit is an
inspection of a building where
there may not
necessarily be a problem but the client
wishes to know the
condition of the building for various
reasons.
10:39 Q. So it relates to the
condition of the building; am I
right?
A. Typically it relates to
the condition and maintenance
liabilities of a
building.
Q. Then you do pre- and
post-condition schedule inspection
and report preparation.
This again relates to the
condition of the
building; am I right?
A. This will relate to the
condition of structures, whether
it's building, a
pathway, a roadway, et cetera.
Q. But when you talk about
condition of structure, you
can't comment on the
safety of the structure in terms of
the civil engineering
aspect; am I right?
A. Item 6 pre- and
post-condition schedule inspections are
referring to recording
the exiting condition typically
in relation to adjoining
construction works.
Q. So you can't comment on
structural integrity; am
I right?
A. It depends what you mean
by --
Q. Can you comment on
structural integrity?
A. As I was about to say,
it depends what you mean by
structural integrity.
Obviously if I see a large crack
in a building I will
highlight it as an area of concern.
Q. And whether that crack
would affect structural
integrity, you need a
qualified civil engineer to come
and tell us; am I right?
10:40 A. Well, depending on the
severity of the apparent defects
then a professional
engineer may be involved.
Q. A prudent and sensible
building surveyor would call in
a PE, if there is an
issue of structural integrity; am
I right?
A. Yes, depending on what
is actually found on site.
Q. If you have any doubts
as to structural integrity, you
would call in a PE; am I
right?
A. If I had a doubt about a
structural matter then I would
call in a PE, yes.
Q. You are a building
surveyor, that's different from
a quantity surveyor; am
I right?
A. In simple terms a
building surveyor and a quantity
surveyor come from the
same family or professional
institution of
surveyors. A building surveyor tends to
deal more with existing
buildings; a quantity surveyor
often deals with new
construction, particularly
obviously in terms of
quantities but --
Q. Is it the same --
building surveyor and quantity
surveyor?
A. It's not exactly the
same, no.
Q. Is it similar?
A. Yes, it's similar.
Q. Okay. Now let's look at
the job of a quantity surveyor.
A quantity surveyor
would value the amount of work --
10:42 A. You are not referring me
to any documents?
Q. I'm not. Are you
comfortable with quantity surveying?
A. It depends what you mean
by "comfortable".
Q. Do you think you are an
expert on quantity surveying?
A. I think I am quite able
to assess --
Q. Are an expert on
quantity surveying?
A. I think I am an expert
in quantity surveying --
Q. Okay, but --
A. -- and I have dealt --
let me finish. I have dealt with
quantity surveying.
Q. No, hang on. I have
bought petrol, that doesn't make me
a petrol engineer. Are
you an expert on quantity
surveying?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Can you tell us
what are your professional
qualifications in
quantity surveying?
A. No, my professional
qualification is building surveying.
Q. What you are your
professional qualifications in
quantity surveying?
A. My professional
qualification is not in quantity
surveying but I don't
think that that means that
I cannot undertake
quantity surveying.
Q. You see, Mr Crispin, we
need to get to the nub of this
because you are being
put forward as expert in valuation
of certain works, and we
are going to submit that you
10:43 are not qualified. Do
you have any qualifications in
quantity surveying?
A. Well, building surveyor
is expected --
COURT: Can you please
answer the question, do you have
any --
A. I don't have any
qualification as a chartered quantity
surveyor but --
COURT: You do or you don't?
A. I don't.
COURT: Thank you.
A. But.
COURT: Please stop there.
MR SREENIVASAN: Let's look
at your professional
relationships. Look at
page 9 of your affidavit. You
are an associate member
of the Royal Institution of
Chartered Surveyors; am
I right?
A. Originally I was an
associate member, that was in 1987
and then I became a
fellow in 1993.
Q. Okay. Is the Royal
Institution of Chartered Surveyors
divided into different
sections? Let me cut to the
chase -- is there a
section for quantity surveyors and
is there a section for
building surveyors?
A. Yes.
Q. And which section do you
belong to?
A. Building surveying or
building --
10:45 Q. So while they are in the
same family, within the family
there is a clear
division between the two branches; am
I right?
A. There is a division,
yes.
Q. What is your status as
far as the quantity surveying
section is concerned?
A. I am not in the quantity
surveying section, I am in the
building surveying
section.
Q. Not even as an
associate, as an adjunct?
A. No, normally you will be
in one section, not more than
one.
Q. Because you would belong
to the section where your
expertise is; am I
right?
A. Well, it may be the
case, yes.
Q. But if I have a building
surveyor who also has quantity
surveying
qualifications, he can join both sections; am
I right?
A. That one I don't know, I
have not come across that.
Q. You are an elected
member of the Tile Association of
Singapore; am I right?
A. In 1993, yes.
Q. You did a lot of work --
in fact one of your most
notable performances as
an expert relates to Eastern
Lagoon; am I right?
A. I don't know about "most
notable", but I was involved in
10:46 Eastern Lagoon.
Q. And what area did your
evidence cover?
A. My evidence covered
really three parts: the first was
the inspection of the
tile debonding, the second was an
assessment as to the
reason for the tile debonding, and
the third was dealing
with the rectification of the
problem.
Q. When you came up with
the rectification, there had to be
a quantum for the
rectification cost; am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. How was that quantum
reached in Eastern Lagoon?
A. It was reached by me
preparing a technical and
contractual
specification and then putting it out to
tender.
Q. And then the
rectification cost was what the tender bids
were; am I right?
A. Yes, and then the work
proceeded.
Q. You didn't value the
cost of the rectification works
using your skills as a
building surveyor; am I right?
A. No, you are not right.
Q. Other than calling for
tender, did you exercise any
quantity surveying
skills?
A. Yes, because the MC
asked me to provide my own cost
assessment and when the
tenders were returned, I had to
analyse the tenders and
give my recommendations.
10:48 Q. Did you work with a QS?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you work with an
architect?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Let's look at your other
cases that you have done which
you have set out in your
CV. Page 26 -- did any of
these items require you
to give a value to the work done
by a contractor? You've
got a list at the bottom of
page 26 and moving on to
page 27.
A. Yes.
Q. Did any of these works
require you to value the works
done by a contractor?
A. Some of these projects
required me to value the works,
either in respect of
building defects or in terms of
work undertaken by a
contractor.
Q. Which one?
A. I will go through them
one by one, shall I?
Q. Just tell us which ones
required you to value the work
done by a contractor.
A. By a contractor, Bullion
Park, Casa Pasir Ris, Dover
Park View, Eastern
Lagoon II.
Q. Over the page?
A. Gold Coast, Hume Park I
Nassim Jade, Palm Spring, and
West Bay. From memory,
those were the ones.
Q. In assessing the work
done by a contractor, you need to
10:50 have an idea of the
costings that should be used; am
I right?
A. Well, in some of these
cases, the contractor is
providing a costing and
then I'm assessing his costing.
Q. And when you assess that
costing, you need to compare it
with some other
costings; am I right?
A. Well, sometimes it's
actually a combination, sometimes
of comparing with other
costings and also based on one's
own knowledge and
experience.
Q. Okay, that's good.
So what was the cost
of steel for structural members
that were used in the
pump house?
A. Now we are going back to
the pump house?
Q. Sorry, the Pump Room.
A. The Pump Room, the cost
of steel in which part?
Q. Structural steel.
A. But the Pump Room, there
was the sort of cold room/brew
house or brew room and
then the mezzanine on top. You
are referring to all?
Q. I am referring to
structural steel members. Do you know
what is a structural
steel member, Mr Crispin?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What is the cost for
structural steel members?
A. In my opinion, the cost
of structural steel was $1.20
per kilogram for this
structural steel.
10:52 Q. Cost of fabrication?
A. Cost of fabrication, my
assessment was I think
approximately $9,000,
fabrication on the site.
Q. Interestingly enough,
your report does not refer to any
costing used by you; am
I right?
A. My report gave the
figure, not the breakdown.
Q. Okay. Mr Crispin, as an
expert, do you agree that you
should have a
methodology in approaching an issue, any
question that you are
asked to answer?
A. That I should have a
methodology?
Q. Yes, there's fixed
methodology to do it.
A. Sorry, in terms of
valuation, do you mean?
Q. That's right.
A. Well, I mean, there are
various methods of valuation but
there are methodologies,
definitely.
Q. Would you also agree
that doing work on an existing
structure would be more
costly than building a new
structure?
A. Well, it depends on the
sort of works that you are
undertaking.
Q. And for the Pump Room,
that sort of work?
A. The Pump Room, you are
still talking about the steel
structure?
Q. Yes.
A. The steel structure is
really fabricated off site and
10:53 then bolted together on
site.
Q. Would it be more
difficult than a new structure?
A. No, I don't think so.
Q. Let's take something
else, let's take HVAC. Do you know
what is HVAC, have you
come across the term?
A. It depends what you are
actually referring to.
Q. Heating, ventilation and
air-conditioning, have you come
across the term?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you agree that it's
more costly to put in HVAC
services in an existing
building than in a new building?
A. No, not necessarily.
Q. Okay. Generally?
A. Generally, no, not
necessarily either.
Q. This word "not
necessarily", sorry, it's a fudge word,
Mr Crispin. Is it
generally more expensive for the same
or less expensive to put
HVAC services in an existing
structure as opposed to
a new building?
A. Firstly it's not a fudge
word. You are using the word
"generally" so I have to
give a fairly general response,
but I don't think there
is any difference in terms of
cost.
Q. So it's the same?
A. Yes.
Q. Let's take wiring,
electrical wiring, would it be more
10:54 expensive to put in
electrical wiring in an existing
structure than in a new
structure?
A. I think it would
probably be cheaper in an existing
structure.
Q. Let's assume you are
putting in concealed wiring, you
have to hack; am I
right?
A. Not necessarily, if
there are conduits.
Q. So if there are existing
conduits it would be cheaper?
A. Yes.
Q. If the wiring is going
to new locations it would be more
expensive?
A. Well, if it's going to
new locations it really depends
whether you need more or
less wire so you can't
generalise and say it
would be more expensive.
Q. Hang on. Whether it's
old or new you have to use the
same amount of wire from
point A to point B; am I right?
A. No, you would have to be
more specific because it
depends if you mean
replacing like for like or
a completely new layout
in perhaps different locations.
Q. So for this Pump Room,
how much wiring was used in terms
of length of wire?
A. Offhand I can't recall.
Q. On hand, check your
notes.
A. I don't have my notes.
I only have the contractual --
Q. Check whatever you want.
10:56 A. Then you have to give me
a few minutes to go through.
Perhaps I need a piece
of paper to write it down.
Q. Please tell us which
documents you are referring to as
we go along. Maybe I
will just move on a moment, before
we touch on this, Mr
Crispin, you did do a valuation in
this case, did you?
A. I did my own assessment,
yes.
Q. No, did you do a
valuation of the work done?
A. It's a valuation, yes.
Q. And you must have done
computations to reach this
valuation; am I right?
A. I have either done
computations on my own assessment.
Q. Sorry, what do you mean
by "assessment"?
A. Well, if looking at a
particular item I think it's too
high or too low or
unnecessary, then I have assessed it
on that basis.
Q. Sorry, I am really lost
at the moment. How do you
decide what is necessary
or unnecessary?
A. For example, if I think
that there is overlapping of
certain items.
Q. Sorry, I am lost again.
There is X amount of wire from
point A to point B,
right?
A. Now I am talking in
general -- I am assuming your
talking in general.
Q. Give me some examples of
overlapping items.
10:57 A. Okay, in my opinion
there was overlapping of the
insurance for the
project.
Q. Okay. So you are
talking about overlapping
preliminaries?
A. Overlapping of the
insurance which is referred to in the
preliminaries but then
--
Q. Besides insurance?
A. Some items I think
should have been taken account of
also within the
preliminaries and then not charged as
variations.
Q. Such as?
A. Temporary protection.
Q. Okay, so we've got two
overlapping items. What else?
A. If you want me to go
through in detail, then I think
I need some time to go
through it in detail.
Q. These are factors you
considered in putting up your
report; am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. These are things you
thought through before you came out
with the number; am I
right?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Where you have done
computations, you have only done
those computations; am I
right?
A. Yes.
Q. As a good professional,
you keep notes of your
10:58 computations; am I
right?
A. Yes.
Q. And those notes are not
exhibited your report; am I
right?
A. My notes are not
exhibited, that's right, and --
Q. Have you given those
notes to the lawyers for the
plaintiff to discover?
A. No, I had not actually
finished answering the question.
What I was going to say
was my notes are not exhibited.
Typically I wouldn't
exhibit my own notes in a report.
Q. Do you have your notes
with you?
A. I have my notes in my
office.
Q. Mr Crispin, you have
given evidence in court before, am
I right, many times?
A. Correct.
Q. And you do know that
when you come to court, you have to
support the basis of
your valuation; am I right?
A. Correct, yes.
Q. So, if you have a
figure, you should be able to tell us
how that figure was
reached; am I right?
A. From my notes, yes.
Q. Which you didn't bring
with you?
A. No, they are in my
office, as I said.
Q. So you can't tell us how
much wiring was used in this
project; am I right?
10:59 A. Well, not instantly, no.
Q. Can you tell us how much
structural steel was used in
this project?
A. Structural steel in
terms of weight, do you mean?
Q. Weight, length and type
of members.
A. The length and type of
members is within the Mason Works
quotations, the weight
in total is approximately 28
metric tonnes.
Q. Let me ask you, when I
use a steel member, I need to
connect it; am I right?
A. One member to another,
yes.
Q. And there are joins that
are put in; am I right? You
connect it, you weld it
on to the connector, you weld
another piece on to the
connector and then the two
pieces will form an
angle or they would be continuing
depending on the length
of the pieces and the drawing;
am I right?
A. In simple terms, yes.
Q. So, you should know how
many connectors were used in
this job so you can
assess the cost of works; am
I right?
A. You mean the cost of
fabrication on site --
Q. For the cost of the
connectors. The fabrication on the
site is the welding; am
I right?
A. No, no, on site it would
generally be bolted.
11:00 Q. Okay, so you would know
how many connectors were used,
then?
A. I know, yes.
Q. Your notes would have
it?
A. Yes.
Q. So if you go back to
your notes, you would be able to
come back and tell us
how many endplates and how many
connectors; am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. For the HVAC, for the
air-conditioning, you should also
be able to tell us what
is the total length of the
ducting; am I right?
A. Approximately, yes, or
what it should be.
Q. And when you do a
valuation of the ducting, you should
have measured the total
length of the ducting; am
I right?
A. I have made an
assessment of what I think the length of
the ducting should be,
yes.
Q. Hand on. Length is
assessed by measurement, am I right?
A. The --
Q. Or do you just stand
back and put your thumb up in the
air?
A. No, I wouldn't do that,
but what I am saying is not at
all times the ducting is
visible so one has to make an
assessment.
11:01 Q. Did you measure any of
the ducting?
A. Where it's visible, yes.
Q. So that too would have
been written down in your notes?
A. Yes.
Q. So you have that in your
office?
A. Yes.
Q. What percentage of the
ducting did you measure?
A. What percentage? Maybe
25 per cent.
Q. And the other 75 per
cent, how did you assess it?
A. By the location of the
vents.
Q. And you have a drawing
showing all the vents in your
assessment of the notes;
am I right?
A. I was making my
assessment on site and I would expect
that there are drawings
as well.
Q. So you didn't see any
drawings?
A. I can't remember whether
I have seen drawings
specifically related to
ducts.
Q. Why don't we look at
your report where you tell us what
your reference material
is. Can you turn to page 151 of
your affidavit.
A. Yes.
Q. Turn to page 154 where
you say:
"In due course
as-built drawings should have been
prepared."
A. Yes.
11:03 Q. So you never saw them;
am I right?
A. I didn't see drawings
that were as-built.
Q. Yes, okay. Part of the
works were hidden; am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. For ducting you saw 25
per cent; am I right?
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. For wiring?
A. Well, the majority of
the cabling is concealed.
Q. So you didn't see the
majority of the cabling?
A. Correct.
Q. What was the power
rating for the distribution board?
A. The main distribution
board was 600 amps.
Q. Where did you get the
costing for that from?
A. The costing -- you mean
of the cost of the board?
Q. Yes.
A. That's my assessment.
Q. Did you refer to any
materials?
A. Well, it's more an
object, so I didn't refer to any
materials.
Q. So tell me, what the
cost of a 600 amp DB?
A. I got my costing in my
own assessment.
Q. The assessment came from
your head; am I right?
A. As I said earlier, it
came from my knowledge and
experience.
Q. Fine. You have you
brought that knowledge and
11:04 experience with you to
court?
A. Yes.
Q. What's the cost of the
600 amp DB?
A. Well, I have to work it
out and then see. Do you want
me to do it now?
Q. Yes.
A. Let me refer back.
(Pause.)
Q. If you are referring to
any documents, please tell us
what they are.
A. Let me find it first.
My assessment, from memory,
I think was about
$8,000.
Q. How many DBs were there,
main and sub-DBs?
A. Well, the main, there
was one; sub-distribution boards,
there were a few because
they relate to different items,
different installations.
Q. So how many?
A. From memory, maybe it
was about six.
Q. How much each?
A. They are different for
different -- a different price
for different
installations.
Q. Ranging from?
A. From memory, about -- I
think maybe roughly $2,000 to
$5,000, but that is from
memory.
Q. For air-con ducting,
what's the costing per metre?
A. Offhand, I can't recall.
11:07 Q. What is the costing you
used in your valuation?
A. I would have to check
back.
Q. Where did you obtain
that costing from?
A. That one was my own
assessment.
Q. Mr Crispin, when you say
it is your own assessment of
costing, do you agree
that costing is affected by a few
factors -- and I give
you the factors one by one: 1,
cost the material to
fabricate; am I right?
A. That would be a factor.
Q. 2, cost of manpower to
fabricate and install; am I
right?
A. Correct.
Q. 3, the difficulty of
installation, ie if you have to put
it in an existing
building and route it round existing
walls and structures; am
I right?
A. That would be a factor.
Q. 4, the cross-sectional
area of the duct; am I right?
A. Correct.
Q. So let's just go to 4.
How would you know the
cross-sectional area of
a hidden duct which you didn't
see?
A. Because the ends of the
duct I could see -- I couldn't
see where the duct was
running but I could see the ends
the ducts.
Q. Could you see whether
the duct had to twist and turn in
11:08 the hidden portions?
A. Well, the ducts are
reasonably flexible anyway, they
shouldn't really be
twisting and turning.
Q. We are talking about
air-conditioning ducts, you know?
A. Yes.
Q. You are saying they are
flexible ducts; is that your
evidence, Mr Crispin,
that air-conditioning ducts are
flexible?
A. Well, my evidence is
that there are various types of
ducts, some were
flexible, some were rigid.
Q. What about the ones used
here?
A. There was a combination.
Q. So let's deal with the
flexible ducts in these premises.
I have no idea whether
they were or were not flexible,
but I am sure Mr Ong
will take instructions and deal
with it. Where were the
flexible ducts?
A. The flexible ducts were
above the false ceiling.
Q. How wide were the
flexible ducts?
A. In diameter, roughly 150
mm, maybe 200.
Q. What material?
A. Well, they were a
foil-finished material.
Q. No, that is a finishing,
what was the material of the
duct itself?
A. Generally the material
is rather like flexible foil as
well, it's like a
flexible tube.
11:10 Q. And what's the cost per
metre for such a foil?
A. That one I would have to
check.
Q. So what's the percentage
combination of flexible and
non-flexible?
A. For The Pump Room in
general?
Q. Yes.
A. I think roughly 50/50.
Q. How did you reach this
conclusion that it was 50/50?
A. By the location of the
vents.
Q. Did you open up the
false ceiling?
A. I looked at some areas.
Q. Did you open up the
false ceiling?
A. In certain places there
are gaps where you can see.
Q. Did you open up the
false ceiling?
COURT: Can you answer "yes"
or "no" and then explain?
A. The answer no, because
there are gaps.
MR SREENIVASAN: Mr Crispin,
I'm suggesting to you that you
are not here as an
independent expert because your
answers have not been
forthright; do you agree?
A. No, I disagree.
Q. I'm also suggesting to
you that most independent experts
give a clear "yes" or
"no" answer and then give a proper
explanation; do you
agree?
A. Well, that one, I don't
really listen to other experts.
Q. That's quite apparent,
Mr Crispin.
11:11 Let's go back to
your report and look at your scope
of works for which you
were engaged. Turn to page 152
of your report.
A. Yes.
Q. "To undertake a visual
survey of the completed works",
can you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. What is a visual survey?
A. A visual survey means a
visual inspection of the works.
Q. I have worked with
several quantity surveyors and, as
the name suggests, they
are quantity and not qualitative
surveyors, they normally
insist on as-built drawings to
measure the actual work
done; do you agree that's what
quantity surveyors do?
A. Well, quantity surveyors
can look at as-built drawings,
they can also look at
the works as on site.
Q. Do you agreed that
quantity surveyors ask for as-built
drawings?
A. No, not necessarily,
because it depends when in the
projects they are
involved.
Q. Yes, if it is a new
build, they can actually measure
what is going in; am I
right?
A. Yes.
Q. But if they are coming
in after the works are completed,
they would ask for
as-built drawings; am I right?
11:12 A. They may but they may
still measure the works physically
on site.
Q. So they would either ask
for as-built drawings or
measure the works
physically at the site; am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. Which is why item 2 of
your scope uses the words "to
conduct an assessment of
the claimed variation works",
while a quantity
surveyor would say "to conduct
a valuation of the
claimed variation works"; am I right?
A. Well, he may do, I've
not seen many quantity surveyors'
quotations.
Q. But there is a
difference between an assessment and
a valuation; am I right?
A. There is some
difference, yes, I am if the sure whether
it's significant.
Q. An assessment is where
you look at 25 per cent of
ducting, not sure what's
the mix of rigid and flexible
ducting, and come up
with a number, while a valuation is
where you measure the
actual ducting, use an independent
cost reference and
calculate the value; do you agree?
A. Well a quantity surveyor
may use an independent cost
reference but not
necessarily.
Q. So, Mr Crispin,
according to you, you can look at a
distribution board and
off the top of your head assign
a value to it; am I
right?
11:14 A. I didn't quite say that,
I know the capacity --
Q. You didn't quite say
that. Now I'm suggesting to you
that what you did was
look at a DB and give a value off
the top of your head; am
I right?
A. As I said, I knew the
capacity of the board.
Q. And then, did you have
any reference to any materials
before you gave your
assessment?
A. Okay, for that item, no.
Q. For air-conditioning
ducting, no; am I right?
A. The ducting, as I said,
I looked at the extent of the
ducting.
Q. Did you refer to any
independent materials?
A. No.
Q. For cabling?
A. Cabling, I have to
check.
Q. Price of steel?
A. Price of steel, yes.
Q. What did you refer to?
A. Price of steel, I looked
at the CPG quarterly cost
review.
Q. You see, this is very
interesting because the
plaintiff's solicitors
did not disclose the CPG costing
at all until after
proceedings commenced, so are you
saying you had referred
to this before proceedings had
commenced at the time
you put up your report?
11:15 A. Yes.
Q. And what is the CPG
costing for steel?
A. It's $1.20 per kilogram.
Q. Can you tell me which
edition you got that from?
A. December 2006.
Q. You see, I have a
problem, because Mr Ong has shown me
the December 2006 CPG
schedule of rates where it says
mild steel members --
they have various numbers but it
between 3.50 and 3.80
per kg.
A. Maybe you want to refer
me to that page, please.
MR SREENIVASAN: Your
Honour, if your Honour can look at the
2nd defendant's bundle
of documents, volume 2, page 430.
Can you see that?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. Okay. A bit different
from $1.20, isn't it?
A. It is, yes.
Q. So I can give you the
full item, the full CPG bundle or
cost information
quarterly, in case Mr Ong has been
nasty and dishonest and
only put in one page.
Look at that.
A. The quarterly --
Q. This is the December
2006, the one you referred to, the
one you got 1.20 per kg
for?
A. Correct, yes.
Q. Please tell us where you
got it from.
11:18 A. Okay, I was referring to
page -- the photocopy is not
very clear, let me refer
to your document.
Q. Page number?
A. Let me just find it
because I can't see the page number
on my own copy.
MR SREENIVASAN: I hope my
learned friend will put in
a supplementary list of
whatever the witness is
referring to.
Maybe, Mr Crispin,
you can show me your photocopy
and Mr Ong will assist
us by telling us which page it
came from.
A. Okay. I'm referring to
the plaintiff's bundle of
documents.
Q. Plaintiff's bundle, yes.
A. Page 26, I can't see the
photocopied page number.
Q. Let me ask you, Mr
Crispin, when did you first actually
see this document?
A. When I was doing my
assessments.
Q. And you gave this to Mr
Vijay?
A. No, not at that time.
Q. Where do you get your
1.20 per kg?
A. If you can just tell me
the page number.
Q. It's page 26 of what you
have given -- no.
A. I have given you page 26
in the plaintiff's bundle of
documents.
11:21 Q. Which is what I'm
looking at. I don't see 1.20 per kg.
Do you?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Tell me where it is.
A. Firstly, you have
referred me to --
Q. No, page 26, plaintiff's
bundle, where is the $1.20 per
kg?
A. The $1.20 per kilogram
is actually referred to in metric
tonnes. I'm referring
to page 26, if you look at the
first section where it
is subheading "Mild steel
I-beams" and it gives
you various dimensions. For the
size of the structural
members, which is generally under
items 3 and 4, reading
across to the price column, it's
actually in dollars
here, it says $1,200, that's per
metric tonne; in other
words it's $1.20 per kilogram.
Q. My dear Mr Crispin,
please read this very carefully. It
says 203 mm times 203 mm
beam, which has a density of
52.09 kilogram per
metre, costs $1,200 per piece.
A. No, it's not. It's per
tonne.
Q. That's your
interpretation?
A. No, it's not my
interpretation. That's what it says.
If you look at the
previous column where it says "unit",
the heading "unit", and
then there is a small "t". "t"
is for metric tonne, so
it's saying $1,200 per metric
tonne.
11:23 Q. Which page are you
referring to now?
A. The same page. If you
look at the figure that you just
referred to.
Q. We are looking at I-beam
2, right?
A. Yes, it doesn't look
whether we look at 2 or 3, but if
you look at 2 and read
across, it has 2, then the
dimensions, then it has
a "t". Okay, "t" stands for --
Q. So that is price per
tonne?
A. Per metric tonne.
Q. Let's assume that we
proceed on your basis, were these
the I-beams that were
used in these premises?
A. Okay, the dimensions of
the I-beams varied --
Q. Were these the I-beams
that were used?
A. Okay, if you -- I have
to refer to another document
because you really need
to refer back to the variation,
so if I refer to the 2nd
defendant's affidavit, to the
bundle.
Q. My question is a simple
one, answer "yes" or "no",
Mr Crispin. Were mild
steel I-beams what were used in
this contract --
A. Okay --
Q. -- or was structural
steel used?
A. No, no, mild steel
I-beams were used, the main heading
is "Structural
steelwork", the specific subheading is
"Universal beams/column
sections" and in general -- the
11:25 dimensions vary slightly
but typically, the steel was
roughly 250 by 250.
Q. So according to you, we
should use page 26, rather than
page 430 of the CPG
guidelines; am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. The CPG refers to this
as structural steelwork and
metalwork, 3.50 per kg;
am I right?
A. At page 430, for solid
section, yes.
Q. So we really need to
know whether the actual beams used
come from page 26 of the
plaintiff's bundle or whether
the reference should be
page 430 of the 2nd defendant's
bundle; am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. And that makes a huge
difference of 120 to 3.50 or 3.70
or 3.80 per kg; am I
right?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. So if you are wrong,
your valuation would be off by
about $56,000, just on
steel alone; am I right?
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. A different of $2 per kg
according to you, 28,000 kg, so
that is $56,000 off on
steel alone; am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. So, did you ask RSP
Architects, the structural engineers
what was the type of
steel beams used?
A. No, because it's in the
Mason Works variation.
11:27 Q. Now, if you look at RSP
Architects' drawings, it would
specify, in the
structural drawings, the type of steel
beams to be used; am I
right?
A. I would hope so, yes.
Q. Did you look at RSP's
structural drawings?
A. No, I looked at the
Mason Works quotation.
Q. Hang on, hang on, Mr
Crispin. You didn't look at RSP
structural drawings?
A. No, I looked at Mason
Works' quotation.
Q. So basically what did
you was you took a quotation, you
didn't refer to any
independent assessments, off the top
of your head you gave an
assessment of what the two
quotations should be; am
I right?
A. No, because the
quotation gives the dimensions of the
steel.
Q. Mr Crispin, I'm really
sorry to suggest this to you, you
have been facing a fair
bit of financial problems with
banks suing you; am I
right?
A. Well, I don't know, you
had better be specific, although
I --
Q. I did a litigation
search. There are at least two or
three banks --
MR VIJAY: What is the
relevance of this? What is the
relevance of this? This
is totally uncalled for and
what has it got to do
with your case here?
11:28 MR SREENIVASAN: I think I
have established sufficient basis
to show that this
witness, I am going to submit, should
not even be admitted as
an expert.
MR VIJAY: That's perfectly
okay --
MR SREENIVASAN: He has sold
his views --
MR VIJAY: But what has that
got to do whether he has money
or no money in the
bank? He can answer what you are
bringing up but --
MR SREENIVASAN: Your
Honour, the Evidence Act allows me to
put forward the
suggestion. If he denies it, I can't
adduce evidence that
goes only to credibility, so I can
put the question to him,
he can deny it and then we
don't have a problem.
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, the
Evidence Act does not allow
questions just to insult
witnesses especially when it
has absolutely no
connection --
MR SREENIVASAN: I will come
back to it later, your Honour.
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, what
is the relevance, first of all,
of --
COURT: Leaving it aside,
should he bring it up again, then
we will deal with it?
MR VIJAY: But having
brought it aside, I will now ask
Mr Crispin whether he
wants to explain, because
sometimes these things,
when they are left unanswered
they do more harm, so I
leave that decision to
11:29 Mr Crispin. He may want
to answer it just to clear.
I will leave that to him
but I think it's totally
uncalled for and unfair.
We were talking
about comparing prices and
dimensions of steel and
then it has gone to financial
status. This is a very
unfair questioning. He is now
trying to explain he got
the measurements from Mason
Works' quotation and all
of a sudden you jump to
financial status.
What is the
connection for a start, your Honour?
I must place on record
my strong objection to this line
of questioning.
COURT: All right.
Do you want to say
anything? If not, we will move
on.
A. Well, I think I have no
choice but to say something as
it has been raised.
I think, firstly, I
was a bit taken aback by this
sort of sudden jump of
questioning. I was expecting
a question why banks
charge so much for steel and
I think this is a
personal and a private issue and
inappropriate to ask
you. But nevertheless, as it has
been asked, I think this
issue relates to joint accounts
between my ex-wife and
me, and that relates to
a particularly
unpleasant and unfortunate divorce. That
11:30 divorce was made
somewhat worse by the fact that my
divorce lawyer was
Charles Ezekiel who, during my court
case when he was acting
for me, disappeared and in fact
I was not even told by
my solicitors until I read it in
the Straits Times that
something had happened. So the
result of that was a
very messy divorce, the majority of
the financial
liabilities, if not all, were on me, and
I'm more than sad to say
that my financial situation is
particularly bad, but I
still have to do my work,
I still have to look at
my children, et cetera,
et cetera, and, as I
said, I think it's totally
inappropriate to raise
an issue of that subject.
MR SREENIVASAN: I do
apologise if it was inappropriate,
Mr Crispin.
MR VIJAY: I think anyone,
especially with my learned
friend's experience
knows it is inappropriate, could
I have the benefit of
asking similar questions to his
witnesses?
Another issue of
housekeeping, your Honour, I have
asked my client, because
is a potential witness, to go
out, questions were
coming on in this area of Mason
Works' quotation, and
figures that were involved, where
it does affect any
cross-examination later, in all
fairness, can my client
be inside or alternatively they
all be outside because
there is a -- especially with
11:32 Mason Works, not so much
Mr Poole.
MR SREENIVASAN: It doesn't
concern me, I don't mind either
way where Mr Vijay's
client is.
COURT: All right.
MR VIJAY: In which case can
I call my client back to be
fair to all?
COURT: Do you need a
five-minute break?
MR VIJAY: Your Honour,
perhaps.
(11.35 am)
(Short break)
(11.59 am)
MR SRINEEVASAN: Mr Crispin,
just to close up the steel
issue, do you agree that
the quotation describes the
structural steel members
as per the RSP drawings?
A. Sorry, you are referring
to the Mason Works quotation?
Q. Yes, that's right, for
structural steel, it doesn't only
give a description of
the steel, it says "as per RSP
drawings"?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you agree that the
RSP drawings set out which BS,
British Standards, have
to be followed for the steel?
A. British Standards for
the steel, in terms of what
respect?
Q. It says it's BS5950,
that's what the structural drawings
say.
12:00 A. I don't know, I have not
seen the structural drawings.
Q. Do you also agree that
the structural drawings say that
the grade should be
S275?
A. No, I don't know.
Q. Do you agree that if the
structural drawings do in fact
say BS5950 and grade
275, then the appropriate way of
calculating the cost
would be that set out at page 430
of the 2nd defendant's
bundle of documents. Page 430 is
the one that says 3.50,
3.70 and 3.80 per kg. (Pause.)
I repeat my question
--
A. It's okay.
No, I disagree that
the $3.50 per kilogram figure at
page 430 is just a very
general figure and doesn't take
account of specific
dimensions for the structural steel.
Q. Do you agree that it
takes it --
A. I have not finished.
Q. Oh, sorry.
A. That's why it's
inappropriate, it's wrong to refer to
that figure on page
E41. You have to refer to the other
table which is much more
specific, which is at page 26
of the plaintiff's
bundle of documents, which refers to
specific structural
member sizes, you know, dimensions,
because obviously the
price varies according to the size
of the steel, not simply
the weight of the steel, so you
can't use a general
figure to look at specific examples.
12:02 Q. Mr Crispin, the price at
page 26 is priced by weight; am
I right? According to
you, it's per tonne.
A. Correct.
Q. The price at page 430 of
the 2nd defendant's bundle is
priced per kg; am I
right?
A. Okay, the price -- let
me just check the actual original
document.
Q. Are you looking for the
thick CPG document?
A. Yes.
Q. Sorry, I took that back.
A. Okay, I need the page
number because I can't see it on
my copy -- okay, page
E41.
Q. Let me help you. The
one at 2nd defendant's bundle 430
is the one that includes
cost of fabrications and all
other relevant items,
while the reference you put in is
only cost of material.
A. I'm sorry, I didn't hear
that, can you repeat that,
please?
Q. The one that I'm
referring to is the correct one,
according to CPG; do you
agree?
A. Is that what you said?
I thought you said something
else.
Q. I'm rephrasing my
question.
A. Sorry, can you say it
one more time so I'm clear.
Q. The one at page 430 is
the correct one, according to
12:04 CPG?
A. I disagree, because CPG
includes more than one
reference.
Q. Now --
A. No, let me finish. As I
said, at page 430 it's just
a general figure, it's
not specific to particular
structural column
sizes. That's why I referred to
page 26 in the
plaintiff's bundle.
Q. Do you agree that page
26 of the plaintiff's bundle does
not refer to the grade
of steel for the applicable BS
standards?
A. I agree.
Q. So we have one that
gives dimensions and we have another
that gives the grade and
the applicable British
Standards; am I right?
A. Correct.
Q. Both give the price by
weight; am I right?
A. The price by weight, did
you say?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. The RSP drawings refer
to a particular British Standard
and a particular grade;
am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. But you don't know that
because you never saw the
drawings; am I right?
12:05 A. Correct, but conversely,
at page 430, there is no detail
as to the column or
structural member size, so you
cannot assume that it's
relevant.
Q. So you have chosen to
ignore the fact that page 26 does
not refer to the
applicable British Standard or grade;
am I right?
A. No, I'm not ignoring it
but I am saying that in my
opinion, page 26 is
relevant and specific, whereas page
430 is very general.
Q. Mr Crispin, you never
saw the drawings; am I right?
A. Correct.
Q. Until this morning, you
didn't know that the drawings
referred to a particular
grade or BS standards; am I
right?
A. Well, I don't know
whether it was this morning, but
recently, anyway.
Q. In fact, if we go and
look at the 2nd defendant's
bundle, if you turn to
page 433 -- the same bundle,
where 430 is, just turn
a few pages down to page 433, we
have a table where RSP
describes the steel for used; am
I right?
A. Yes.
Q. If you turn to page 431,
at the bottom, there is an
email from RSP addressed
to William Graham:
"We attach the steel
tonnage computation used for
12:07 the schemes approved by
the authority" --
A. Sorry, which page again?
Q. Page 431 at the bottom,
from Sunny Wong to Bill:
"We attach to the
steel tonnage computation for both
the schemes approved by
the authority and the one
actually built on site."
Can you see that?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. And this attachment is
at pages 433, 434 onwards; am
I right?
A. Correct.
Q. And RSP, when they give
their computation, use weight;
am I right?
A. They used weight, yes.
Q. They have used BS
applicable steel grade; am I right?
A. Well, they actually used
-- they refer to two grades.
Q. Yes.
A. It says S, it's probably
"SS" but it's standard 275 and
standard 355, whereas
the general figure of $3.50 refers
to S275 and BS5950.
Q. Yes, Mr Crispin. If you
look at this, do you agree that
the S355 is a very small
quantity, it's only 174 tonnes,
everything else is --
A. Sorry?
Q. 275?
12:09 A. 174 kilograms?
Q. 174 kilograms. So the
355 is a very small quantity, do
you agree?
A. I agree, but it doesn't
refer to BS5950.
Q. Since it doesn't refer
to BS5950, do you know whether
S275 is equivalent to
BS5950?
A. I don't know, I would
have to check.
Q. Do you agree it would be
relevant to know whether BS5950
is referred to in the
structural drawings?
A. Well, that wouldn't be
my primary concern, which British
Standard or Singapore
standard the steel refers to.
My primary concern
would be which rate is correct
and which is relevant.
Q. Would the rate be the
same for all different types of
steel?
A. Well, in general, for
this dimension of steel, I would
expect one particular
structural grade, not many
particular structural
grades.
Q. Would the rate be the
same?
A. If the structural grade
is similar the rate should be
similar.
Q. So you need to know the
structural grade; am I right?
A. Well, I think that, as I
said earlier, more relevant is
the dimensions --
Q. Do you need to know the
structural grade?
12:10 A. Well it may be referred
to but I can't find it.
Q. Do you need to know the
structural grade to find out the
cost of the steel?
A. No, I don't think so. I
think what's more relevant is
the dimensions of the
steel, and that's what's
specifically stated and
that's why I used page 26 and
not page 430 which is a
very general figure.
Q. Your explanation for the
big difference between page 26
and page 430 is? What's
your explanation?
A. I thought you were going
to say something.
No, my explanation
is that page 26 is specific in
terms of dimensions and
in effect density because it's
kilograms per metre,
whereas the figure of $3.50 at page
430 is just a very
general figure, and in terms of
correlation with the
variation, it's much clearer that
the figures at page 26
would apply and not the general
figure at page 430.
Q. Let's be scientific, Mr
Crispin, if page 430 puts 3.50
and page 26 puts 1.20
per kilogram, and there is
therefore a difference
of $2.30 per kilograms,
a variation of almost
200 per cent upwards, and they are
both contained in the
same source, there must be
a reason for the
difference in price; do you agree?
Simple logic.
A. Yes.
12:12 Q. There can be one of two
reasons: it is very cheap to
fabricate I-beams such
as that described in page 26, as
compared to whatever is
being described in page 430, so
the page 26 items are
much cheaper, one-third of the
price because they are
cheap to fabricate -- that's one
possible explanation; am
I right?
A. Well, I think that is an
oversimplification and I think
it's missing the point.
Q. No, no, hang on. Is it
a possible explanation?
A. That it's cheaper? No,
because you are not comparing
like for like so you
can't make a comparison --
Q. We have two different
figures for the price of steel; am
I right.
A. You have two different
figures for steel members which
can be completely
different and therefore not
comparable.
Q. That's right and we are
trying to find out what the
difference is because
you have chosen one over the
other.
A. Yes.
Q. The difference is that
page 26 gives the dimensions and
the density per metre;
am I right?
A. Page 26 gives specific
dimension whereas page 430 gives
no dimensions.
Q. Mr Crispin, you are here
to answer my questions.
12:13 Page 26 gives specific
dimensions and density per metre;
am I right?
A. Correct.
Q. Page 430 does not; am I
right?
A. Correct.
Q. Page 430 gives a
specific description of the BS
standards and the grade
of steel; am I right?
A. Well, it refers to the
British Standard and the grade of
steel, it doesn't refer
--
Q. So am I right?
A. No, let me finish, it
doesn't refer to the specific type
of profile or steel or
use of steel.
Q. Mr Crispin, I know that,
I am not an idiot. My question
was very
straightforward. Does it refer to the British
Standards and the grade
of steel?
A. Okay --
Q. Is it a "yes" or "no"?
A. I think firstly I would
appreciate a level of decorum,
I don't appreciate being
shouted at.
Q. And I would appreciate a
level of forthrightness. My
question is does page
430 refer to the British Standards
and the grade of steel;
"yes" or "no"?
A. It does, yes, it does.
Q. So we have one
description that gives the profile and
density, but not the
grade, and another that gives the
12:14 grade, but not the
profile and density; am I right?
A. Correct.
Q. So one description is
partially complete in terms of
profiling and density
and another is partially complete
in terms of standard and
grade; am I right?
A. Correct.
Q. We have to choose one or
the other; am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. The one at page 430, you
can take my word for it, is the
description given by RSP
Architects in the structural
drawing, it is also the
description given in terms of
grade in their email; do
you agree?
A. Yes.
Q. So, Mr Crispin, when you
chose page 26 instead of 430,
tell us why -- first,
did you consider the figures at
page 430?
A. Yes, I did, I saw the
figures.
Q. Then, did you check what
was the actual market rate for
the beams of the type
supplied to The Pump Room?
A. Yes, which is what is
referred to at page 26, because
that is specific for the
size of beam.
Q. When you said you
checked page 430, did you know what
was the applicable BS
standards and grade of steel? You
didn't?
A. Well, I have not
answered yet. When I looked at
12:16 page 430, when I look at
the CPG quarterly publication
in general, I looked at
both pages and I made a decision
which I thought was more
relevant and which was more
specific. Simply
because there is a British Standard
referred to doesn't
necessarily cover all situations.
My concern was the
dimensions and the density of the
steel and those
dimensions and densities are very close
to what was used in
Mason Works' quotation, and that's
why I referred to those
as opposed to the general figure
at page 430.
Q. You had not seen the RSP
drawings; am I right?
A. Correct.
Q. You didn't know that the
applicable standard was BS5950;
am I right?
A. The applicable standard
BS5950 or grade S275 does not
necessarily mean that
the other structural steel is
wrong --
Q. Can you listen to my
question. If you can't want some
decorum then please
listen and answer.
You didn't know that
it was BS5950 and S275; am I
right?
A. Correct.
Q. You didn't know that
page 430 could be applicable; am I
right?
A. No, I made a decision
that page 430 was not applicable
12:17 because it was too
general.
Q. You made that decision
without knowing what were the
specs; am I right?
A. No, because if you read
a figure of $3.50 per kilogram
actually it's fairly
meaningless because there is not
enough detail provided
in the description to find if
that wig figure is
useful, that's why I refer to
page 430.
Q. Do you agree that the
grade of steel might be a useful
detail?
A. No, because this is both
referring to structural steel.
Q. Then explain to me,
since you could choose one over the
other, why is there a
discrepancy in the same data given
by the same body?
A. Well, I wouldn't
describe it as a discrepancy, I would
simply describe it that
page 430 is a fairly general
figure whereas page 26
is a specific figure with
particular dimensions.
Q. So page 430, which is
almost 200 per higher, what's the
reason for it being 200
per cent higher?
A. It could be many
reasons. It could be because it's
referring to very small
pieces of steel and because it
doesn't give particular
dimensions. Actually, it's
impossible to tell.
Q. So one possible reason
is it refers to very small pieces
12:19 of steel?
A. Yes.
Q. What are the other
possible reasons?
A. Beyond that it's
difficult to say because there is not
enough detail in the
description.
Q. Mr Crispin, are you
prepared concede that another reason
for the discrepancy may
be the grade of steel?
A. No, I don't think so
because they are both structural
steel.
Q. So what's the grade at
page 26: given by BS standards or
SS standards?
A. Page 26 doesn't refer to
grade --
Q. You tell me what the
grade is.
A. It just refers to
structural steelwork and it refers to
specific dimensions for
steel beams.
Q. So could it be a
difference in grade?
A. Sorry, a difference in
grade --
Q. To explain the price
difference.
A. No, I don't think so. I
think it's simply because page
26 is specific.
Q. Then what is page 430,
what does it refer to?
A. I mean it's referring to
a mixture of possibilities. As
it says, stanchion,
beam, girder, roof truss, purlin,
pleat and bracket.
Q. All of different
dimensions; am I right?
12:20 A. Well, different
dimensions --
Q. All of different
profiles?
A. Different profiles,
correct.
Q. Yet one price; am I
right? Because they are all of the
same grade and the same
British Standards; am I right?
A. No, I don't think so at
all.
Q. So come back, since you
are here as an expert, other
than saying that there
is a specific dimension in page
26, can you offer us any
explanation why page 430 is
almost three times the
price?
A. Well, I think that
simply the price of $3.50 is a very
general price and it
cannot be used in specific
examples, whereas page
26 is quite specific so that's
the one I chose.
Q. Page 26 is specific in
terms of dimension and density;
am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. Page 430 is specific in
terms of grade of steel; am I
right?
A. Correct.
Q. Steel is sold by weight
and not by length or profile; am
I right?
A. It's sold by weight,
yes.
Q. So, if we want to
exercise some common sense, we would
go on the basis that the
weight is a major factor; am I
12:21 right?
A. The weight is a major
factor for specific steel
dimensions. It doesn't
mean that all steel of any
dimension has the same
price.
Q. Why don't we go back to
your page 26. We can see that
the dimensions change a
lot; am I right? In all the
items there, the
smallest one up front is 100 by 100 and
17.2 kg per metre; am I
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Then if we go to the
biggest, item 6, it's 356 times 368
times 177 kg per metre;
am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. The weight per metre has
gone up dramatically because
the profile is bigger;
am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. So with this dramatic
change in profile -- let's see,
100 by 100 -- that's
about 10 cm by 10 cm, that's about
4 inches by 4 inches; am
I right?
A. Correct.
Q. 368 times 368, that's
about 14 inches by 14inches; am I
right?
A. Yes.
Q. So this huge increase in
profile size gives us an
increase in price of
less than 20 per cent; am I right?
A. Roughly, yes.
12:23 Q. Now we also know that
the length of quite irrelevant
because they only give
the profile; am I right?
A. Correct.
Q. So if we were to look at
your page 26, it shows that
two-dimensional 300 per
cent increase, if you go by
cross-sectional area, 10
times increase gives us
a 20 per cent increase
in price; am I right?
A. When you talk about
cross-sectional area, these are not
solid square-shaped
pieces.
Q. Okay, fine. Then let's
just stick to the
two-dimensional increase
of three times gives you
a 20 per cent increase
in price; am I right?
A. Approximately.
Q. So if we were to look at
profile size, co-related to
price increase, it's not
very significant; am I right?
A. Within reason, yes.
Q. So that profile size
cannot explain the 200 or the three
times price increase
between page 26 and page 430; am I
right?
A. The profile size? Well,
you're not really comparing
like for like because
you don't know what the figure of
$3.50 is actually
referring to in any profile or shape.
Q. Do you?
A. You don't.
Q. Do you?
12:24 A. No, I don't, that's what
I said.
Q. And you rejected it?
A. Yes, I rejected it
because it's general and there is an
alternative which is
specific.
Q. And the specific
alternative does not refer to steel
grade at all; am I
right?
A. Correct, it refers to
structural steelwork.
Q. Which comes in different
grades; am I right?
A. It will but not
significantly different. The main
concern is that it's
structural steel.
Q. Did you call up anybody
to find out why page 430 was so
different?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Do you consider yourself
an expert on structures?
A. In what respect?
Q. That you are able to
give evidence to say structural
steel is all about the
same?
A. Well, I didn't say -- my
evidence wasn't that structural
steel was all about the
same but I am quite expert
enough to see that page
26 is relevant and page 430 is
really not the page to
use.
Q. Did you pick up the
phone and call up RSP Architects and
ask them, "Since you are
the structural experts, which
would be the relevant
factor, relevant value to use?"
A. No, I made my own
decision.
12:26 Q. Are you prepared to pick
up the phone at lunchtime, call
up RSP Architects and
come back and tell us what they
think or whether you are
prepared to change your view?
A. Well, I'm prepared to
speak to RSP if there is somebody
willing to speak to me
and there is a contact number,
et cetera.
Q. You can call Mr Sunny
Wong and his contact number --
A. I'd better write it
down. Is Mr Sunny Wong aware that
I'll be calling him?
MR SRINEEVASAN: I am sure
Mr Vijay can arrange for --
MR VIJAY: No, no. I never
heard of such things. I don't
want to interrupt your
cross-examination. I am not
a party to this kind of
...
MR SRINEEVASAN: Mr Crispin,
do you think it would be good
and helpful to the court
that you actually talk to
somebody familiar with
structural matters and structural
steel on which is the
appropriate costing to use?
A. Well, I don't think it's
going to change my opinion
because my opinion is
quite clear but I would have
thought that that person
would really need to give their
own evidence.
Q. Hang on, hang on. If I
put forward an expert on
structural steel in
front of you, whatever he says will
not change your opinion?
A. My opinion is quite
clear in terms of which I think is
12:27 the relevant set of
costs to follow.
Q. Are you prepared to
reconsider your opinion?
A. I'm always prepared to
hear views if it's correct to do
so.
Q. As long as they agree
with you?
A. No, I didn't say that,
and I don't think that should be
implied.
Q. So are you prepared, if
give you the name of a reputable
structural engineer
familiar with steel construction, to
answer -- to give you
his views as to which is the
correct figure to use?
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, I
must object to this line of
questioning. First, it
is for my learned friend to
discredit or credit past
questions and get the answer
from witness.
My learned friend,
as I understand, has no expert,
on steel or otherwise,
witness. Having not provided for
alternative expert, now
he wants this witness to go and
get him a witness to
bring evidence in this court.
I think that's highly
inappropriate, I have made these
RSP documents available
to them, I also made it clear
that they can subpoena
RSP.
MR SRINEEVASAN: This
document was made available on Friday.
MR VIJAY: They are
documents from RSP, everyone can go to
RSP and get these
documents, not specifically to me. I
12:28 got them and made them
available to everyone.
MR SRINEEVASAN: Your
Honour, actually my learned friend has
missed the point. I
think the point which I will submit
on is that this witness
lacks so much objectivity and is
not even prepared to
consider getting the views of
people more
knowledgeable in any area, and I would
submit on that. My only
regret is my learned friend
seems to share that a
lack of objectivity.
If I may move on,
your Honour.
MR VIJAY: Now, your Honour,
I have taken down that the
witness said that he is
prepared to listen to views so
he can make his
submission but that is not what the
witness says.
If you want to
discredit the witness with your
questions, go ahead, but
how can you ask my witness to
go and look for some
witnesses elsewhere and bring him
to court? If you need
him, you subpoena him, you bring
him here and prove
otherwise.
MR SRINEEVASAN: Your
Honour, if I may proceed.
COURT: Yes.
MR SRINEEVASAN: Mr Crispin,
other than your evidence that
the profile is specific
in page 26 and no profile is set
up at page 430, do you
have any other view on why there
is a 200 per cent
difference in the price of structural
steel set out in the
same CPG document?
12:30 A. I think that that's
something that CPG could probably
answer better but as I
said earlier, the figure at page
430 is very, very
general, and refers to various types
of steel, not just
structural steel but pleats and
brackets, et cetera, so
it seems to be a more indicative
figure, a general figure
as opposed to a specific
figure.
Q. Other than that, do you
want to add any other reasons
why you chose page 26
over page 430?
A. No, thank you.
Q. Do you agree that page
430, as you have pointed out, is
a general description
that would include end plates?
A. That would include what,
sorry?
Q. E-n-d p-l-a-t-e-s?
A. End rates?
Q. E-n-d p-l-a-t-e-s?
A. Sorry, I couldn't catch
it. Could you repeat your
question, please?
Q. Page 430 includes items
like end plates?
A. It doesn't say "end
plates".
Q. I'm asking you. I know
it doesn't; if it does
I wouldn't ask you.
A. Well, it's not giving
end plates as a specific
example --
Q. Does it include end
plates?
12:32 A. It doesn't say that it
does, no.
Q. I know it doesn't, Mr
Crispin, I am able to read. My
question to you as an
expert is does it include end
plates?
A. It's not clear.
Q. Okay. Do you know
whether it does?
A. No, I don't because, as
I said, it's not clear.
Q. So you can only go on
what you read at page 430?
A. Well, I read 430 and I
decided it was not clear and
specific.
Q. So before you
disregarded it as not clear and specific,
did you seek any
assistance from someone who ought to
know or who would know
what 430 refers to?
A. No, because this
publication is now discontinued so I'm
not sure who I could
speak to, but I'm quite happy with
the figures at page 26.
Q. Of course you are, you
are very happy with them; am
I right?
A. Because they are
specific and clear.
Q. In terms of size and
profile?
A. Correct.
Q. But not in terms of
grade and standards?
A. No, I didn't say that.
Q. I'm putting it to you
that the figures at page 26 were
not specific, in fact
were general in terms of grade and
12:33 standard?
A. No, I disagree because
it's referring to structural
steelwork.
MR SREENIVASAN: I will move
on, your Honour.
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, if
my learned friend is putting
a proposal to the
witness, then he must have the
evidence for which he is
putting that. As I understand
there are no witnesses
who are going to give evidence,
at least on behalf of
his client, so I don't understand
the basis for putting
that when they have no other
witness to say
otherwise.
MR SREENIVASAN: Your
Honour, there is a Tamil saying:
covering a hole with
darkness. I think it would suffice
for me to point out to
the witness what he has said,
what he has not said,
the witness has given us the basis
of his selection and I
will submit in my submission of
no basis, my learned
friend can submit accordingly.
MR VIJAY: Yes, if he
submits --
MR SREENIVASAN: (Unclear --
simultaneous speakers).
MR VIJAY: If you are saying
it is no basis submission,
I have no quarrels with
that.
MR SRINEEVASAN: So wait for
my submission but if you are
putting --
MR VIJAY: No.
MR SRINEEVASAN: Wait for my
submission.
12:34 MR VIJAY: Sorry, I'm
objecting to your put question because
you have no basis to put
that question.
COURT: Can we move on?
MR SRINEEVASAN: Yes, your
Honour.
Let's go back to
your expert -- sorry, let me be
accurate -- let's go
back to your report.
If you can turn to
page 139 of your affidavit, we
were dealing with the
words "conduct and assessment of
the claimed variation
works" -- have you found it?
A. Yes, 139.
Q. I had touched on but not
followed up on the difference,
if any, between an
assessment and a valuation -- is
there a difference?
Think carefully because these are
terms of art.
A. Sorry, you are referring
to the second --
Q. Bullet point 2, "to
conduct an assessment of the claim
variation works". Is
there a difference between
"assessment" and
"valuation"?
A. No, I don't think so.
Q. Okay. So the words are
interchangeable, according to
you, in the context of
your report?
A. Yes.
Q. You then have given a
valuation of various works that
were carried out; am I
right?
A. Yes.
12:36 Q. If I can just turn you
or ask you to turn to page 160,
item 9.
A. Yes.
Q. Structural and flooring
plans for brewery, you put no
quotation and a claimed
variation of $80,000.
A. Yes.
Q. I don't know what Mr
Ong's position on this is going to
be but I looked through
the documents and I couldn't
find a claimed variation
or variation claim of $80,000.
Can you help us?
A. I would have to go back
through my file. I know that
there is no number but I
remember seeing initially
a document that was
referring to structural flooring
works.
Q. No, you have valued this
at 10,000 so you should know
what you valued.
A. Yes.
Q. You must have gone there
and valued it.
A. Yes.
Q. What did you value?
A. I valued it as being in
relation to the structural
floor, as it says, for
the brewery.
Q. Forget what it says.
A. Yes.
Q. This item is something,
according to you, Mason Works
12:38 claimed $80,000; am I
right?
A. Yes.
Q. And according to you,
what they did was only worth
$10,000; am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. So we need to find
something that they have claimed
$80,000 for?
A. Yes.
Q. And after that we can
cross-examine you on your
valuation of $10,000,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. I can't find anything
that they have claimed $80,000
for. Can you help us?
A. Well, as I said,
firstly, when I went through the
documents initially, I
saw, you know, a document,
although it wasn't a
quotation claiming $80,000. I know
that there is some
confusion regarding this item, and
I think that's also
reflected in the 2nd defendant's
expert's report.
Q. No, forget about the 2nd
defendant's expert report,
I want to know where you
got this $80,000 figure because
your affidavit in the
earlier parts has listed
quotations, claims,
invoices, all sorts of documents and
I can't find $80,000.
A. There is a document I
remember seeing originally when
12:39 I went through all the
documents --
Q. It is in your report --
explain it?
A. The summary is in my
report but when I originally did my
assessment, I looked at
a lot of documents and one of
those documents would
have referred to $80,000.
Q. Mr Crispin, the
documents relating to the works are also
exhibited in your
affidavit; am I right?
A. Well, not all the
documents.
Q. The documents relied
upon by you in your report, where
you say Mr Ong's clients
charged 80,000 instead of 10
and so must pay back
70,000 -- this is part of your
report; am I right, item
9?
A. Well, I'm saying that my
assessment was 10,000, yes.
Q. And that Mr Ong's
clients charged 80,000?
A. Well, I am saying there
was a variation that said
80,000, yes.
Q. And the plaintiff is
saying that my client has to pay,
amongst lots of other
things, this $70,000, so I'm quite
concerned on this 80
minus 10 equals 70, so before we
question you on your 10,
what I would like to know is
where did the 80 come
from, because the plaintiff wants
my client to pay. It's
more than my fees.
A. No, I'm saying that it's
10,000. I'm not saying --
Q. No, no, what is 10,000,
Mr Crispin -- it?
A. I'm saying that the
10,000 was for structural and
12:41 flooring works for the
brewery as it says, based on
a document that I saw
when I went through all the
documents originally.
Q. You are saying it should
be 10,000 instead of 80; am
I right?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. So what is the 80?
A. Well, I would have to
try and find the actual document.
Q. You have put it in your
report.
A. Yes, I know.
Q. You have exhibited
relevant documents to your affidavit.
I don't mind if my
learned friend assists, your Honour,
so we can save time.
I'm sure the relevant document
would have been
discovered.
COURT: Yes.
MR VIJAY: I don't know --
what am I supposed --
MR SRINEEVASAN: You were
not paying attention.
MR VIJAY: What assistance
are you talking about?
MR SREENIVASAN: If you look
at page 160 of your expert's
affidavit --
MR VIJAY: I have nothing to
add to his evidence.
MR SRINEEVASAN: So, Mr
Crispin, you are on your own, please
help us with the $80,000
document.
A. Well, I would have to go
through the original documents
that I went through when
I did my inspection to find it.
12:42 COURT: Shall we give him to
time to look for it?
MR SREENIVASAN: Yes, your
Honour.
But if you can't
find anything, we can cancel this
off; am I right?
A. Well, I would ask to be
allowed to look first.
Q. Never mind. Can you
turn to page 159, item 1,
"Alterations and
additions and fitting-out works" --
452 -- you have not put
in any variations and you have
not given a valuation to
that; am I right?
A. Maybe I just explained
--
Q. No, no, hang on. You
have to answer my questions. You
have not given a
valuation to that?
A. Correct.
Q. So now, if you turn over
to the back at page 161, are
you aware that it is the
plaintiff's claim of about
$500,000-odd which is
essentially variation minus
valuation?
A. Sorry, you are referring
now to page 161?
Q. Yes.
A. And you're saying ...?
Q. Are you aware that the
plaintiff's claim is variation
minus valuation?
A. Variation minus
valuation?
Q. The total for variation
is 815,569, the total for
valuation is 251,940,
are you aware the difference
12:44 between the two figures
is the plaintiff's claim?
A. No, I don't think I have
seen the plaintiff's claim.
Q. Now, would I be correct
to say that you did not carry
out a valuation of item
1 at page 159?
A. Item 1 which is the
$452,000 quotation, I had a look at
the quotation and I also
had a look at the quotation
prior to that; in fact,
this was at least a second
quotation for this work,
so this was a more finalised
figure than the original
figure, so I used this figure,
although there seemed to
be some anomalies between this
and the first figure.
Q. Mr Crispin, I think it's
very important if you listen to
my question, because you
have to answer my questions.
Did you carry out a
valuation of the works
encompassed in item 1?
A. As individual items, no.
Q. No, collectively, the
total of 452,000, did you carry
out a valuation?
A. You mean whether I
thought the figure was reasonable?
Q. Yes.
A. I thought for the
project 452,000 was reasonable.
Q. Mr Crispin, I'm really
sorry, because you are not
answering my question.
Did you carry out a
valuation of the works set out
in item 1?
12:45 COURT: It's either "yes" or
"no"/
A. Okay. The answer is
"yes", because I went through the
figures compared with
the previous quotation.
MR SRINEEVASAN: Did you
inspect the works at site?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. So in terms of item 1,
this would be the quotation given
at 8 September 2006; am
I right?
A. Maybe I'd better check
the dates.
Q. I think you'd better,
but maybe I will help you. Sorry,
it's 10 September, it
starts at page 51 -- it's either
the 8th or the 10th,
there are two different dates, and
the total price is found
at the end at page 62. It's
also found in page 64 at
the end of it all?
A. Yes, maybe for clarity
at page 62 it's 452, and then at
page 64 it's 452, and
this is excluding what's referred
to as the PC sum items.
Q. The figure looks exactly
the same to me -- the 452 is
pre-GST and the 474 is
post-GST.
A. That part I agree, yes,
one is without GST and one is
with GST --
Q. So this correlates with
item 1 of your valuation; am
I right?
A. Yes, I have referred to
the figures all without GST.
Q. Without GST, that's
right.
So you have not done
a valuation of this item, of
12:48 the items in this
quotation; am I right?
A. Okay, my only assessment
was looking at the differences
between the first and
the second quotation.
Q. Now, Mr Crispin, do you
agree that building costs, if I
were to go and buy an
apartment, which I would never be
able to afford to, from
SC Global, the cost per square
foot that the contractor
or the developer would have
imposed would have
expanded, it might be very high,
300/350 per square foot,
am I right, or even higher?
A. Sorry, can you say that
again?
Q. If I were to go to a
very high end developer, someone
like SC Global, the cost
per square foot for the
developers' construction
can be very high, 350/400 per
square foot; am I right?
A. Well, I don't know.
I've not studied their costs.
Q. Alternatively, if I go
to a very low end developer and
I shall not mention any
names, it could be built at $150
per square foot; am I
right?
A. Not necessarily, no.
Q. If I were to renovate
any house -- my house -- I can
spend half a million
dollars or $50,000 for the same
area; am I right?
A. The same area but
different work.
Q. Different work,
different finishes; am I right?
A. Yes.
12:50 Q. I can put tiling at
$3.20 per square foot or at $18 per
square foot; am I right?
A. You can, yes.
Q. When I renovate a pub or
a restaurant, I can renovate it
with plastic tables and
chairs like McDonald's, or I can
go high end; am I right?
A. "High end", you mean
more expensive?
Q. Very much more
expensive.
A. You can, yes.
Q. So the price variations,
when you look at renovation
costs for a restaurant,
can be very wide; am I right?
A. Price variations for a
restaurant?
Q. Yes.
A. Okay, yes.
Q. Now, in this particular
instance prior to this, have you
ever valued the works
needed in renovating or doing up
a restaurant?
A. Yes.
Q. Which restaurant?
A. This was really a food
court.
Q. This is a food court?
A. No, I'm referring to a
food court.
Q. Oh, okay. Well, I think
a food court is a bit different
from a restaurant, am I
right?
A. In terms of --
12:51 Q. I'm sure Mr Graham likes
to think that The Pump Room is
one up on a food court.
A. In terms of the quality
of finishes there is
a difference, but,
obviously, they both have tiles,
air-conditioning,
kitchens, et cetera.
Q. A kitchen would be
different between a food court and
a restaurant; am I
right?
A. Well, in the food court
there were multiple kitchens in
effects.
Q. The kitchen here is put
up by Sommerville, Mr Graham's
company; am I right?
A. Well, I don't know whose
company it is.
Q. Well, the one thing we
have here, Mr Crispin, that you
don't have in a
restaurant is a brewery -- which you
don't have in a food
court; am I right?
A. Correct.
Q. So have you ever had any
experience in valuing the works
done in a restaurant?
A. In a restaurant, you
mean a high end restaurant
restaurant like this?
Q. Yes. Just say "no".
A. No, I'm just trying to
recall. Not that I can remember
offhand, not this high
end.
Q. Have you ever valued the
works done for a brewery?
A. A brewery, no.
12:52 Q. Prior to this, have you
ever valued M&E works?
A. M&E works, yes.
Q. Have you ever valued
structural works?
A. You mean like a
structural frame?
Q. Steel structure.
A. Yes.
Q. And when you valued the
steel structure, did you also
use $1.20 per kilogram?
A. Well, that was at a
different time so I used the
relevant figure at that
time.
MR SREENIVASAN: Now, with
his Honour's leave, I'll take
a break, I think it
might be apt, but there are a few
things I would like the
witness to consider doing; first
bring down all your
measurements that you took on site;
second, purely as a
suggestion, no more than that, pick
up the phone and call a
structural engineer that you
might know and see
whether you want to change your
evidence on the cost of
steel.
Your Honour, I will
be about another half an hour or
45 minutes after lunch,
after which my learned friend
Mr Ong will be
cross-examining.
2.30, your Honour?
COURT: Yes.
(12.54 pm)
(The
luncheon adjournment)
14:31 (2.45 pm)
MR SREENIVASAN: Good
afternoon, your Honour.
COURT: Good afternoon.
MR SREENIVASAN: Mr Crispin,
when you looked at the CPG
norms did you look at
selected pages or did you look at
the entire publication
of CPG?
A. The document -- I looked
at the entire document.
Q. And you are aware that
CPG is the privatised arm of PWD?
A. Yes.
Q. And the entire document
which I have shown you this
morning -- I will now
give you a full copy -- would be
this; am I right?
A. Yes.
MR SREENIVASAN: Your
Honour, may this be tendered and
marked as D2-1.
COURT: Okay.
MR SREENIVASAN: I'm
respectfully suggesting, because there
are three defendants,
the documents can originate from
different parties, this
document in fact originated in
my learned friend Mr
Ong's client.
COURT: All right.
MR SREENIVASAN: If you look
at this document, Mr Crispin,
can you turn to the page
that says section E, the first
page of section E. The
section numbering is at the
bottom right-hand
corner, there is a little circle, E
14:46 page 1. Can you see it?
A. Okay, I can see E, but
the numbering -- the number is
not clear but I can see
"Preambles".
Q. In fact, above the E,
about one and a half inches above
the E, you will find the
page number, 1.
A. It's missing, but never
mind.
Q. If you look under
"Preambles", you will find that this
section is headed "Fixed
schedule of rates"; am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you looked at
this you saw these words, "Fixed
schedule of rates"; am I
right?
A. Yes.
Q. If you can look at the
preamble, can you read out 1.1?
A. "1.1 Introduction.
"This fixed schedule
of rates (FSR) is intended to
be used for the pricing
of variation. It is to be read
in conjunction with the
other documents forming the
contract.
The clauses" --
Q. Let's stop there. In
this particular case, you have
come forward and you
have attempted to price the four
VOs; am I right -- the
four variations?
A. Or however many, yes.
Q. Or however many. So
when we say this fixed schedule of
rates is intended to be
used for the pricing of
14:48 variation, you should be
look at this as a first choice;
am I right?
A. You mean this section?
Q. This section.
A. Not necessarily, no.
Q. Okay, never mind, let's
move on.
If you go to 1.3,
"Description and Rates", and we go
over to the right-hand
column in the middle:
"Unless otherwise
stated, the following shall be
deemed to be included
with all items:
(a) Labour and all
costs in connection therewith."
Can you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. In this case, the 2nd
defendant was putting in the
structural steel with
labour and all costs and
connection therewith; am
I right?
A. In the Mason Works
quotation, yes.
Q. (b) materials and goods
including waste, laps, joints
and all costs in
connection therewith."
So this concludes
the cost of materials including
wastage; am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. So you may have to chop
up the I-beams, you have some
wastage here and there;
am I right?
A. Correct.
14:49 Q. And you have your
connectors and your end plats -- you
don't have to turn the
page yet, Mr Crispin, I will get
to the point. Just look
at the page I want you to look
at.
"(c) supplying,
transporting, delivering, unloading,
storing and hoisting
materials and return of packings."
Mason Works had to
do that as well; am I right?
A. They would have done,
yes.
Q. Then it includes
straight, raked and circular cutting
the beams, the
structural members would have to be cut;
am I right?
A. Well, they may have come
to site precut.
Q. But it's -- okay, precut
by whom?
A. Precut by the supplier.
Q. Let's skip that then.
"Fabricating,
assembling, fitting, fixing and
bedding materials and
goods in position."
Mason Works would
have to do that; am I right?
A. Correct.
Q. "Preparing surfaces to
receive work", that would have to
be done; am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. "Protecting materials
and work", that would have to be
done by Mason Works; am
I right?
A. Yes.
14:51 Q. "Machinery, equipment
and all costs", that would have to
be done because you have
to weld the steel or bolt it
down. Either way you
have to bring that equipment on
site and use it; am I
right?
A. Yes.
Q. "Cleaning up ... and
making good", that has to be done;
am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then "establishment
charges, overhead charges,
preliminaries and
profit", now that can either be
included in this clause
or as a separate item; am
I right?
A. Yes.
Q. So do you agree that the
appropriate section of CPG's
quarterly report that
should be used is section (f)?
A. Sorry, section (f)?
Q. Sorry, section (e).
A. Section (e). Well, it
still comes down to the actual
figure --
Q. Hang on, before we come
to the actual figure, can you
turn to page E6.
A. Yes.
Q. In terms of structural
steel and metalwork, 9.1,
"Measurement", this
says:
"The mass of mild
steel, stainless steel and
14:52 aluminium members shall
be measured from their overall
lengths with no
deductions for splay cuts, mitred ends
or for the mass of metal
removed to form notches and
holes each not exceeding
0.10 metres squared."
That is the
methodology of measurement; am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. But that didn't matter
to you because you didn't do any
measurement; am I right?
A. No, I didn't say that.
This is really referring to
a sort of gross
measurement.
Q. Did you do any
measurements of steel?
A. For the lengths.
Q. You did?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay, we'll come to your
measurements then. The rates
includes the following,
then we have items (a) to (f)
which are specific for
steel; can you see that?
A. Rates 9.2, yes.
Q. And then for steel, you
notice you need to put in two
coats of red lead
primer; am I right?
A. Let me just see. This
is item --
Q. Below (a) to (f) in 9.2,
the rate of each item concludes
priming with two coats
of red lead primer before
installation.
A. Yes.
14:53 Q. Because steel can rust
if you don't paint it with
primer; am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. In your computation for
steel, I take it that when you
valued the steelwork you
have taken all these items into
account?
A. Yes, these are sort of
all-encompassing items.
Q. In your 1.20 per kg?
A. Yes.
Q. These are all
encompassed in your 1.20 per kg?
A. Okay, let me just --
Q. Am I right?
A. Hold on. Let me have
another look.
Q. Take a good look.
You're the professional.
A. Some of these items I'm
saying should not be within that
particular price.
Q. Which items?
A. In other words not
within the $1.20 price.
Q. So tell me what is taken
out from the $1.20.
A. Okay, this is going back
to the first page, E1.
Q. Actually, Mr Crispin, E6
is more specific for mild
steel. E1 is general,
E6 is specific for structural
steel and metalwork, so
why don't we limit ourselves to
what you take out for
E6.
A. Okay, E6 --
14:55 Q. 9.2, what do we take out
from your 1.20? And after that
be prepared to tell us
which other valuation we can put
that in.
A. No, I think you really
have to refer to the first page,
E1.
Q. No, Mr Crispin, E1
refers to everything including
carpentry, concrete,
splicing, painting and the works,
E6 has got the specific
provisions of E1.
A. So are we now ignoring
E1?
Q. No, we'll go to E1. It
will just take longer and then
when you take out an
item please also tell me how that
is relevant to steel in
the first place.
A. Okay, so we go to E6
first.
Q. No, you want to do E1?
I'm happy, I know where I'm
going.
A. Well, I think maybe I
start with E1 just because it
comes first in the page
numbering.
Q. Okay, which one do you
want to take out?
A. This is referring to the
items (a) to (j). Let me just
go through them.
Item (e), which is
the actual fabrication.
Q. It is the fabrication,
assembling, fitting, fixing and
bedding materials and
goods in position, you want to
take that out?
A. Yes.
14:56 Q. So you don't have to put
the steel out, do you?
A. No, I'm saying that's
not included in the $1.20.
Q. Okay.
A. The same for (f).
Q. Okay.
A. And (g), and I. I'm
saying those are not within the
$1.20.
Q. Now if you go to E6,
9.2, the specifics for steel, what
would you want to take
out?
A. (c), which is the
installation, and (d), which is also
installation.
Q. If we take out (c) and
(d), have you provided for
installation elsewhere
in your valuation?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. If you look at
section (e) then, would I be
correct to say that the
best approach would be to take
the price in section (e)
and then make deductions for
those items that you
have taken off; am I right? Would
I be correct, Mr
Crispin?
A. Yes, if you accept the
rate within the document, you
know, within this
section.
Q. The rate in sect
|
