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


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


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


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


The blacklisted directors of the Highlander Singapore are : 

William Graham   S2706594E

237 Arcadia Road #05.04 The Arcadia, Singapore 289844


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


George Clark Martin   F5663609U

30A St. Thomas Walk Singapore 238111


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

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

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

Public Record | Trial Transcripts 1


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


           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


              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


      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'


              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


              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.


                    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


      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



10:39 Q.  So it relates to the condition of the building; am I


      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


      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


      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


      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


      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


      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


      A.  Well, it depends on the sort of works that you are


      Q.  And for the Pump Room, that sort of work?

      A.  The Pump Room, you are still talking about the steel


      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


      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


      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


      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


      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


      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


      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,


      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


      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



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


      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


      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


      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


      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


      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


      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


      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


      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'


      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


      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


      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


      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



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


      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



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


      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


      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


      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


              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


      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


      Q.  It says it's BS5950, that's what the structural drawings



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


      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,


      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


      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


      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


      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


      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


      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


      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


      Q.  That's right and we are trying to find out what the

          difference is because you have chosen one over the


      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


      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


      A.  Correct.

      Q.  You didn't know that page 430 could be applicable; am I


      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


      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


      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


      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


      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


      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


      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


      Q.  As long as they agree with you?

      A.  No, I didn't say that, and I don't think that should be


      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


      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


      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


      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


      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


      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


      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


      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


              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


              "(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


      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


      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,


      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


      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


      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


      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


More data here Day 2




2013 | Contact