|
Friday, 31 October 2008
(10.23 am)
MR PAUL CRISPIN
CASIMIR-MROWCZYNSKI (previously affirmed)
Cross-examination by
MR ONG
MR ONG: Good morning, Mr
Crispin. I'm sorry that yesterday
I guess it was a bit
heated up. I hope and I promise
his Honour that I
will try to finish my cross-examining
in two hours.
COURT: Before lunch, any
time.
MR ONG: Having reviewed
your affidavit of
evidence-in-chief, I
think it's good for me to start in
areas of your
evidence which I am in full agreement
with. Shall we start
there, Mr Crispin?
Let's start with the
sequence of events set out in
paragraph 2 of your
affidavit of evidence-in-chief. Do
you have that with
you?
A. Sorry, which page is
that?
Q. Yours is the last one,
the red-bound affidavit; do you
see that?
A. Yes, I have it.
Q. Yours is the last flag
in the bundle.
A. Yes.
Q. As I said, Mr Crispin,
this will be areas where I'm in
full agreement with
your evidence.
Can we establish that
as per paragraph 2 --
10:25 A. Sorry, which page?
Q. It's marked as page
1.
A. Page 1 of my
affidavit?
Q. Right. I promise
you I will be sticking to your words
like glue, you
understand.
Paragraph 2 --
are you with me?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Would you
like to read it for us, the first line?
A. Okay, paragraph
numbered 2 or paragraph 2 on page 1?
Q. I don't know because
my copy is a bit different, but
I assume there's
only one paragraph 2.
A. You are referring to
this page?
Q. Right, but this page
only has paragraph 1, I think.
A. It's numbered 1 but
you are calling it paragraph 2, is
that right?
Q. A page and a
paragraph are two different things,
Mr Crispin.
A. Why don't you just
read the first few words and then
I will know which
one you are referring to.
Q. Please turn to the
next page, the third line from the
top. I'll read it
for you. Let's late make it fast.
"On or about
February 2007, I was approached by one
William Graham from
The Pump Room Pte Ltd to undertake
a visual inspection
and to prepare a report in relation
to the completed
works, additional works and contract
10:27 documentation in
relation to The Pump Room project ."
You've got that?
A. Yes.
Q. So that's correct,
isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. So you were saying
you were first approached by
Mr William Graham in
February 2007.
A. Yes.
Q. What happened after
that, in the next line, would you
like to read that
now?
A. Yes:
"I wrote to
William Graham care of Quayside Dining
Pte Ltd on 6
February 2007 setting out the scope of
services in
paragraph 2 and quoting my fee."
Q. That letter is found
now at page 4 to 27 of this
affidavit; correct?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. So the paragraph 2
you were referring to in your
testimony must be
paragraph 2 of this letter of
engagement under
scope of services at the next page,
right?
A. At page 25, yes.
Q. What it says is you
are being engaged by Mr William
Graham, I think the
letter says of Quayside Dining Pte
Ltd?
10:28 A. I was engaged -- in
reality I wrote to Quayside Dining
Pte Ltd because
that's the address that I got.
Q. So you were
approached by Mr William Graham who told
you, "Prepare me a
letter of engagement", and this is
what you prepared,
isn't it?
A. Or a quotation --
this was the agreed quotation.
Q. So in this
quotation, it sets out your conditions of
engagement, doesn't
it?
A. Yes.
Q. Let's read
paragraphs 2.1 to 2.6, shall we?
Paragraph 2.1 --
I'll just abbreviate it, you are to
undertake a visual
survey of the completed works, right?
Paragraph 2.2, a
visual survey of the variation
works; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. 2.3, to consider any
necessary rectification works; 2.4,
to peruse any
available contract documentation.
A. Correct.
Q. So you are basically
to read all the contracts?
A. Yes.
Q. 2.5, you are to
provide an overview, summarising the
findings.
Now I need to
stop you, when you say "findings" you
would also include
findings on the contract documents;
is that right?
10:29 A. Yes.
Q. So let's go to
paragraph 3 of your affidavit, back to
page 2.
What it says is
"William Graham" -- I'll call him
Mr Graham from
hereon, if that's okay:
"[Mr] Graham
agreed to my quotation and I therefore
proceeded with my
inspection."
Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. So let's take
stock. First Mr Graham approached you,
then you gave him a
quotation to engage your services;
is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Then he agreed to
that and you started work?
A. Correct.
Q. So following your
letter of engagement -- let's look at
paragraph 4, it was
after you were engaged that
Mr William Graham
gave you all these documents, right?
Let me summarise
them. Your paragraph 4(i) you have
Ed Poole's
agreement, you have Mason Works' quotation
and invoices, you've
got Frederick Wong's agreement and
then you've got Ed
Poole's drawings.
A. Correct.
Q. You didn't have
Mason Works' contracts, did you?
A. The contract that I
saw was only what was referred to on
10:31 the Ed Poole
drawings under subparagraph (iv), which was
really just sort of
specification, not an actual
contract between the
2nd defendant and the plaintiff.
Q. Right. So you
prepared your report on the basis that
there was no
contract between Mason Works and Pump Room,
right?
A. Well, I prepared my
report based on the documents that
I was given.
Q. Right. Let me turn
to your report at page 162 of this
affidavit.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see a note
(b)?
A. Yes.
Q. Just to put every
one of us in the right context, this
note is of course
following your evaluation of all the
works in the
preceding pages; right?
A. Correct.
Q. They come under the
heading of "Valuation" at item 3 of
your report. So
these are notes to your valuation
report.
A. Yes.
Q. Note (b) says:
"Many of the
quotations do not appear to have been
accepted by the
client."
Is that correct?
10:33 A. Yes, correct.
Q. So if it has not
been accepted, there can't be an
agreement; am I
right?
A. Sorry, you mean an
agreement in general or for that
individual --
Q. An agreement between
Mason Works and The Pump Room.
A. That one -- sorry, I
don't quite understand what you
mean.
Q. Let's just take a
step back, Mr Crispin.
A. Yes.
Q. The terms of your
brief were to read the contracts and
give findings on the
contracts. You have just told us
in paragraph 4 of
your testimony that you didn't have a
contract between
Mason Works and The Pump Room. All of
this is correct,
isn't it, I am not putting words in
your mouth?
A. What I said was I
didn't see the contract.
Q. Right, so that's
why, because you didn't see a contract,
you didn't make any
findings on the contract between
Mason Works and The
Pump Room; that has to be right?
A. Yes, the only
findings I made were in reference to what
was referred to on
the Ed Poole drawings.
Q. In fact you have
made it as a responsible professional,
under paragraph (b)
at page 162, just now the notes to
your evaluation,
that in fact even the quotations
10:35 themselves don't
seem to have been accepted by the
client. That should
fortify your belief that there was
no contract,
shouldn't it?
A. No, it doesn't mean
to say that there is no contract.
Q. But you haven't seen
any.
A. No, no, there is the
issue of the contract between the
plaintiff and the
2nd defendant and then there's the
issue of the
quotations, some of which are accepted and
some of which don't
appear to be accepted because they
are not signed.
Q. And your brief was
to make findings on it, wasn't it?
A. I made findings on
the provided documentation.
Q. And because you
didn't see a contract, you never ever
referred to a
contract in your report, did you?
A. Well, I didn't refer
to a contract because obviously
I couldn't.
Q. And you didn't make
a finding as to that contract?
A. I didn't make any
finding to the contract I didn't see,
correct.
Q. So, as far as you
were concerned, you had only seen
quotations and
invoices from Mason Works, (ii) in
paragraph 4, page 2
of your affidavit?
A. Correct.
Q. But you managed to
refer to Ed Poole's agreement; is
that correct?
10:36 A. I did, yes.
Q. And you managed to
refer to Fred Wong's agreement at
(iii) on the next
page?
A. Yes.
Q. So you see, when you
saw contracts, you noted them; when
you didn't see
contracts, you didn't say a contract.
That's being very
responsible, I agree with you, right?
That's why you
didn't make any findings on the contracts
between Mason Works
and The Pump Room?
A. Correct.
Q. Let's go to these
invoices that you've got. In
particular let me
refer to page 98 of your affidavit --
have you seen it?
A. Yes, page 98.
Q. This is one of the
quotations under your
paragraph 4(ii),
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Keeping your eye on
page 98, let's read what appears on
the bottom left-hand
corner of this quotation. Do you
see it?
A. The handwritten
note, right, yes.
Q. Let's read it
together, shall we? It says:
"To be reviewed
and approved as reasonable by
qualified engineer
Crispin."
Am I correct?
10:38 A. Correct.
Q. It appears to jump
right to the top left-hand corner of
the page. It says,
"Same retention as main contract",
does it not?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. Then, after that, it
says, "Failing to find. Crispin to
recommend."
Did you look at
the handwritten comments when you
perused the
quotations and invoices?
A. Initially no, but of
course I noticed it once I started
looking through the
documents.
Q. Right. And, having
seen it, did you decide, on seeing
this clause, to have
a separate section perhaps in your
report on this?
A. Sorry, a separate
section on ...?
Q. Well, I mean, you
were supposed to present a fairly big
omnibus report that
also covers Ed Poole's agreement,
Fred Wong's
agreement, Ed Poole's drawings, Mason Works'
quotations and
invoices. Did you think about looking at
this referral and
saying, "Hm, should I touch on this
separately in my
report?"
A. Well, I am not sure
what I would be meant to say
regarding it.
Q. So you did nothing
-- you didn't act on this, right?
A. Well, it didn't
change anything in my report.
10:40 Q. Right. I suppose,
having read it, you must have
wondered, "Hey, I am
not a qualified engineer, am I?"
Are you?
A. Well, I didn't
wonder in particular regarding that,
because very often
people use different terms for
professionals
without necessarily knowing the
differences.
Q. But you looked at it
and said, "No, it shouldn't change
any bit of what I
propose to do with my report", right?
A. Correct.
Q. So you proceeded
full speed ahead and you completed your
report around 8
March 2007, didn't you?
A. Well, there was a
draft first.
Q. Right. Your client,
Mr Graham -- if I can refer you to
page 98 of his
affidavit, from the next affidavit
bundle -- shall I
read it for you?
A. Maybe I will just
find it. Sorry, page 98 of
Mr Graham's
affidavit?
Q. I'm sorry, paragraph
98 of Mr William Graham's
affidavit.
A. Page 38, is it?
Q. No, I am sorry, page
32, paragraph 82.
A. Page 32, paragraph
82, okay.
Q. Mr William Graham
testified that some time in March --
"8 March 2007,
Crispin Casimir gave me his draft
10:43 report", so he must
be right.
A. Sorry, who must be
right?
Q. Well, your report is
dated March.
A. Yes.
Q. Your client confirms
that he got it on 8 March, and they
don't clash, do
they?
A. It doesn't clash,
no.
Q. So you completed
this report on 8 March --
A. Correct.
Q. -- 2007, and whether
you call it draft, or you call it
final, you have
never significantly made any changes to
this report, have
you?
A. Correct.
Q. I'm going to ask you
to bear with me now. We will look
at your report in
some detail. Could you turn to
page 152 of your
affidavit. Let's take the first line,
shall we,
"Introduction":
"CC Building
Surveyors Pte Ltd was appointed by The
Pump Room Pte Ltd in
relation to a property at Clarke
Quay, Singapore."
Correct?
That matches
what you said in your affidavit in that
when you prepared
your letter of engagement, the only
person signing it
was Mr William Graham; correct?
A. On behalf of the
company.
10:45 Q. So Mr Ed Poole
didn't sign your letter of engagement,
did he?
A. No.
Q. Mason Works didn't
sign your letter of engagement, did
they?
A. No.
Q. Mr Fred Wong from
C&P Services did not sign your letter
of engagement, did
he?
A. No.
Q. So it is correct,
your report, the only client in
question is The Pump
Room Pte Ltd, isn't it?
A. Correct.
Q. Let's go to the
second paragraph. It says:
"The brief was
to undertake a visual inspection and
to prepare a report
in relation to the pricing of the
works. The report,
however, was subject to perusal of
the contractor's
requested final account, and so the
figures remain
provisional."
Are you aware,
Mr Crispin, that on 3 February,
before your
engagement, there was a final accounts
meeting between
Mason Works and The Pump Room?
A. Between Mason Works
and The Pump Room -- a final account
meeting? Well, I am
not sure what that means. Does
that mean the final
account was provided?
Q. No, I am just
asking. It doesn't matter whether you
10:47 were aware or
whether we should correctly classify it as
the final accounts
meeting.
My point is were
you aware of such a meeting that
tried to finalise
everything relating to the project?
A. No.
Q. You were not, right?
Let's look at
your specific brief following from
there. Bullet
points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 correspond to
paragraphs 2.1, 2.2,
2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 of your
letter of
engagement, don't they?
A. Yes.
Q. Right. So far, from
what we have seen, your report was
initiated by your
letter of engagement, and not agreed
to by anybody else
besides The Pump Room Pte Ltd; am
I correct?
A. Whether it was
agreed to or not by anybody else, I don't
know.
Q. Well, it was not
agreed between them and you even?
A. Sorry, between ...?
Q. You remember you
agreed with me that Ed Poole didn't
sign your letter of
engagement?
A. Yes, I agree.
Q. Mason Works didn't
sign?
A. Yes.
Q. So you were carrying
out this report pursuant to
10:48 a letter of
engagement that's only been accepted by The
Pump Room Pte Ltd,
weren't you?
A. Correct.
Q. Let's go to item 2,
"Background Information".
A. Page 153.
Q. The next page, 153,
yes. I'll just move along as fast
as I can:
"It was noted
that relatively major addition and
alteration works had
been undertaken at the site at
Clarke Quay, Block
B, on behalf The Pump Room Pte Ltd.
The main works
were undertaken by Mason Works Pte
Ltd whilst the
piling works for the brewery were
undertaken by Soil
and Foundation."
Correct so far?
A. Yes.
Q. "The interior
architecture and design consultancy
services, including
surveying, designing, detailing,
observing the
construction installation and project
management was
undertaken by Poole Associates Pte Ltd."
Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. "The scope of work"
-- I guess meaning your scope of
work -- "did not
include for structural or mechanical
and electrical
services."
Sorry, could
have been Poole Associates's scope of
10:50 works; right?
A. Correct. How you
corrected it is correct, yes.
Q. Okay. I am sorry
for my wrong interpretation earlier
on:
"However, Poole
Associates Pte Ltd was to arrange
for the appointment
of other consultants as
appropriate."
Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. "The M&E consultant
was Project Portfolio. C&P Contract
Services Pte Ltd was
the project manager."
That was the one
co-counsel Mr Tan took you through
yesterday, right?
A. Yes.
Q. The next paragraph:
"Poole
Associates Pte Ltd was also to evaluate and
agree with the
client regarding the type of contracts
and tender
procurement. However, there was no evidence
that a tender
exercise or negotiated contract exercise
had been carried
out.
Poole Associates
Pte Ltd's scope of work also
included assessing
the limitations of the existing
elements. This
should have included the floor slabs."
I am not losing
you, am I?
A. No, no.
10:51 Q. Let's move on
quickly to the next page:
"It was noted
that the contractual terms, included
at the beginning of
the drawings documentation, included
the following,
being:
1. Contract to
commence on 12 September 2006. (No
completion date).
2. Liquidated
damages set at $300 per day.
3. Defects
liability period of 6 months.
4. 10 per cent
retention during the defects
liability period.
There was no
provided documentation regarding
certification of
payments and/or the deduction of any
retention money.
There were also
no specific details stated regarding
third party
liability insurance or any performance bond.
A 'contractor's all
risks insurance policy' existed for
the period from 12
September 2006 to 31 December 2006.
(This should also
have included the defects liability
period). There was
no evidence of any performance bond
being issued.
The intended
completion date appeared to be
31 December 2006,
based upon the above insurance policy
and the main
contractor's provided work programme.
There were no
specific details regarding payment claims,
and their frequency.
10:53 The works
themselves included the construction of
the following items,
being: Seating area, bar areas,
kitchen,
brewery/cold room area.
In due course
as-built drawings should have been
prepared."
Now, the rest of
these pages, I will spare you of
my droning voice.
Let's just look at it from here.
So far, from
what we have read, would you agree with
me there's nothing
in here that talks about the
quotation at page 98
of your affidavit stating your
review as a
qualified engineer?
A. Correct.
Q. So while you were
preparing the report, you never
thought, "Hang on, I
should talk about that quotation
here, shouldn't I?"
You didn't think that way, did you?
A. Not for the report.
As I said, it wouldn't change my
findings.
Q. So if anyone were to
tell you, whilst you were preparing
the report, "Wait a
moment, you should talk about the
price review in
Q1671, the review clause", you would
have said, "No,
that's a mistake", wouldn't you?
A. Sorry, I would have
said it was a mistake? Which part
are you referring
to?
Q. No, I am imagining,
if someone were right beside you
when you were
preparing this report and said, "Hang on,
10:55 shall we talk about
that price review document we saw?",
what would your
response have been?
A. I would have said,
"Yes, we can talk about it."
Q. But you didn't talk
about it.
A. I talked about it
but I've not referred to it
specifically in my
report.
Q. Where did you talk
about it?
A. Because during the
completion of this report, I met
Mason Works, I met
the 2nd defendant.
Q. Mr Crispin, just
talking about your written report here.
A. I thought you were
talking about page 98.
Q. Remember, the
scenario was if someone was sitting beside
you as you were
preparing the report and said, "Wait
a minute, let's talk
about the price review document",
your response was,
"I don't hear you", your response was
nothing.
A. No, that wasn't what
I said.
Q. Okay, let's look at
it this way. After your letter of
engagement, I asked
you just now, you said no, it
doesn't change your
going full speed ahead with
preparing the report
-- right?
A. I didn't say "full
speed ahead" but I proceeded with my
report.
Q. You went ahead, you
didn't factor in this price review
document in your
preparation of the report?
10:57 A. I didn't factor in
that paragraph.
Q. At all?
A. Sorry?
Q. You didn't factor it
in at all in your report?
A. Correct.
Q. Correct. Now your
report was completed in March 2007 --
you didn't talk
about that price review document either,
right?
A. You mean that
paragraph?
Q. Right.
A. Correct.
Q. From March 2007 to
the time you signed your affidavit,
27 September 2008,
one and a half years later, you still
didn't talk about
that price review document, did you?
A. No.
Q. So, isn't it fair to
say that price review document did
not factor in your
report at all.
A. It didn't -- it
wasn't referred to in my report.
Q. Because it did not
enter your mind at all.
A. No, it's because, as
I said, it wouldn't make any
difference to my
findings.
Q. Right, makes no
difference is the same as not entering
your mind.
A. No, it's not the
same.
Q. To your mind it's
not the same?
10:58 A. No, it's not "to my
mind it's not the same"; it's not
the same.
Q. All right. Just a
minor point with regard to this price
review document;
let's look at page 98 again, so this is
the price review
document I was referring to, right?
A. Page 98.
Q. Right. After the
questioning with Mr Sreenivasan
yesterday, there is
some question about whether it's
more appropriate for
it to be reviewed by a quantity
surveyor, isn't it?
A. You mean there was,
yes.
Q. Yes. Are you aware
that your clients themselves
considered
appointing a quantity surveyor sometime in
February 2008?
A. Yes, I was aware.
Q. So perhaps that was
meant to cover this price review
document, wasn't it?
A. Well, as far as I
know, they decided not to proceed,
although I'm not
sure whether that's correct.
Q. Would you want to
see some confirmation of your clients
wanting to appoint
this quantity surveyor or you are
perfectly happy with
that?
A. It's not necessary.
Q. Mr Crispin, I'm now
going to come to a slightly more
contentious area and
I think I should give you more due
11:02 warning.
Let's go now to
your valuation report. That is at
section 3, page 159
of your affidavit of
evidence-in-chief;
am I correct?
A. Okay.
Q. Before we start on
the individual items, can I just take
stock of what
happened yesterday. Let's start with the
price of steel. The
gist of what happened yesterday was
you made an
assumption that the price of steel and
labour -- well, it
started as $1.20 and after some
further study of the
cost information quarterly issued
by CPG, we've
reached some sort the consensus that the
$1.20 did not
include certain items of labour.
A. Which is what I had
always said in the first place.
Q. All right. So from
$1.20, we eventually settled at
$1.50; is that not
right?
A. I wouldn't say that
we settled. There was the figure of
$1.20 and there was
the figure of $3.50.
Q. Mr Crispin, I have
before me the verbatim transcript of
your answers
yesterday. Shall I read out the questions
and answers?
Your Honour,
it's at page 100 of the verbatim
transcript.
I'm reading from
this page to the two following
pages, that's where
it shows your transition from $1.20.
11:05 Feel free to correct
me if the verbatim reports are
wrong, okay.
Mr Sreenivasan
says:
"Mr Crispin, I
have not asked you -- this morning
and we are on
digital recording, you gave the valuation
of the steelworks in
those items of the quotation that
included labour and
materials and everything at 1.20
per kg; am I right?
Answer: No, not
including labour. I am saying the
$1.20 per kilogram
is supply and deliver.
Question: So
what's the total cost for the
steelworks, supply,
deliver, fabrication, installation
and everything else?
Answer: Then I
need a piece of paper to put it in
those terms, or a
calculator and a piece of paper."
Apparently you
didn't do previous calculations,
that's why you gave
us the answer earlier on that it was
$1.20.
A. No, you asked me to
look at it from a different
perspective.
Q. Okay, never mind,
let's read on -- but that was your
answer so far,
right?
A. Correct.
Q. So you were
calculating more or less the first time?
A. No, I was
calculating the first time on that basis.
11:07 Q. Okay, on that basis,
right.
Let us your at
your calculation after that.
"Just to
interrupt you a moment, Mr Crispin, you
have not calculated
this separately in this manner
before, right?
Answer: I have
not combined --
Question: Not
in this manner?
Answer: No.
Question: $2.15
in total?
Answer: No, I
have not done it yet. (Pause.)
Question: Have
you got a figure for us?
Answer: Yes.
Question: The
kg all in?
Answer: The
materials and labour per kilogram, I'm
saying $1.50, for
this particular Pump Room structure."
So you did end
up agreeing $1.50?
A. No, I tended up
calculating $1.50.
Q. It's not fixed yet.
I'm inviting you, if you can --
A. I don't have my
calculation in front of me now. No,
I wrote it down
yesterday.
Q. So are we agreed
today it is not $1.50?
A. No, no, no, what I
was saying was I was asked to
calculate in a
certain way, and based on that method it
was $1.50, materials
plus labour.
Q. Right.
11:08 COURT: So is it the
same figure today?
A. It's still $1.50
based on this method, yes.
MR ONG: Thank you, your
Honour.
Yesterday you
were aware that CPG schedule of rates
put it at a range
between $3.50 to $3.80; that's in my
2nd defendant's
bundle 2, page 430.
A. I'm sorry.
Q. A blue binding, slim
volume, page 430. Interestingly
enough, if you look
at the top right-hand corner, my
photocopy can(?) say
that it's fixed schedule of rates,
doesn't it?
A. It does.
Q. So CPG's fixed
schedule of rates values materials and
labour, in that same
section you went through at length
with Mr Sreenivasan,
at $3.50 to $3.80.
A. I think probably
more accurately $3.50 to $3.70 under
the same section.
Q. Right.
Now, these are
assumptions on which it is made,
isn't it -- you
know, whether it is $1.50 per kilogram
or $3.50 per
kilogram, $3.70 per kilogram of steelwork,
these are the
assumptions on which we base our
valuation, isn't it?
A. Well, it is
assumptions -- I used the $1.20 figure.
Q. But these are
assumptions, right?
11:10 A. Sorry, an assumption
in what respect?
Q. On which to value
variation works. We went through that
in to the CPG's cost
index quarterly.
A. One has to make a
judgment which is the relevant figure
to use.
Q. And these figures
were used to value variation works,
weren't they?
A. They can.
Q. So if we use these
assumptions -- let's see. If you
were to turn to page
433 of that same bundle, two pages
down.
A. Yes.
Q. Let's look at the
as-built tonnage (unclear) by RSP.
A. 433, yes.
Q. We have as-built on
the right-hand column under "Total",
18,541.1 kilograms,
multiplied by 3.50 at the lower end
of the spectrum. Do
you want to see my calculation,
Mr Crispin?
A. I will listen first
and then --
Q. Okay. My calculator
says $64,893.85. Let's look at
your valuation at
page 160. The right-hand column is
your valuation
figure for the items of work, am I right,
page 160?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. So let's look at
item number 10, the last item on the
11:13 page. You valued
the entire construction of the brew
house and cold room
structure as being $40,000?
A. Correct.
Q. If one uses CPG's
rate at the lowest level, $3.50 per
kilogram, the cost
of steel and labour alone used in the
brew house would
have exceeded $40,000, wouldn't it?
A. Yes, if you choose
to use that rate.
Q. Okay. Let me use
your rate, Mr Crispin. $1.50, right?
A. No, my rate was
$1.20.
Q. Huh?
A. You have to be
clear. The rate that I said was $1.20
for materials; the
rate that was calculated yesterday
was $1.50 for
materials and labour.
Q. Right, and for the
proposed construction of the brew
house and cold room
structure, we are talking about
materials and
labour, aren't we?
A. We are, yes.
Q. So why are we going
to $1.20?
A. Firstly, I'm making
it clear what we are actually
talking about;
secondly, my valuation of $40,000 had
labour as a separate
item. Now we are referring to
labour and materials
inclusive, which is the $1.50 per
kilogram figure, so
I am just clarifying.
Q. You are just
clarifying. Let me clarify. Didn't you
assure his Honour
that today your final figure is
11:15 $1.50 per kilogram
materials and labour?
A. Yes, but I'm just
clarifying which figure we are using.
Q. Okay, we are
clarified. I am asking you: do you want to
stick by this 1.50
per kilogram?
A. Yes, that's okay.
Q. With your consent,
let me try to compute -- 18,541.10 --
our figures are in
agreement, 27, 811.65?
A. Sorry, let me just
do it -- 27, 811.65.
Q. If we deducted this
from your valuation of $40,000, we
are left with
$12,188.35; am I correct?
A. Yes.
Q. I have benefitted
from your evidence yesterday. I was
impressed by your
point that we must compare like for
like. So far we
have only calculated the materials and
labour for steel,
for the structured steelworks, but
that's not the whole
picture, is it?
A. Correct.
Q. You need to do
mechanical & electrical works, you need
to do some
preparatory work, bedding, demolition, the
cold room electrical
installations -- we're not talking
about your normal
bar fridge, are we, we're talking
about industrial
strength cooling equipment; am I right?
So the rest of
your valuation is 12,188.35 after the
steelwork and labour
and materials are excluded?
A. Correct, yes.
11:18 Q. Let's see your note
(a) at page 162. This is the
assumption that
forms part of your valuation, isn't it?
"Typically new
services would cost approximately
$450 per metre
squared."
That's the
yardstick you used to value the rest of
the non-steel works;
am I right?
A. Well, I wouldn't say
it was the yardstick. It was more
a sort of example --
it wasn't a yardstick.
Q. But it is kind of a
good guide, shall we say?
A. To some extent it is
a guide, yes.
Q. So let's take this
figure, 12,188.35. If we divided it
by $450 per metre
square, it must presume that the total
area occupied by the
brewery can be no more than
27 square metres --
my calculator got that. All I did
was I divided that
final figure, the figure of $12,188,
I divided that by
$450 per square metre, using your
note. It must drive
me to the conclusion that the area
occupied by the
brewery has to be no more than 28 square
metres; am I right?
A. No, you are not
right.
Q. What?
A. No.
Q. I'm using your
guide, Mr Crispin.
A. Sorry?
Q. I'm using your
guidelines.
11:20 A. No, you are misusing
my guidelines. That guideline is
referring to M&E
services which generally comes under
other headings and
other variations or quotations.
Q. So you are saying
that now we should ignore your note
that "typically new
services would cost approximately
$450 per square
metre"?
A. No, I am not saying
that, but I am saying that figure --
Q. Why can't I use it
in my calculation?
A. No, let me finish,
then. What I'm saying is that that
figure is a
guideline in relation to M&E services, for
the other areas
where there are M&E services. My
valuation of $40,000
basically for the steel structure
and the floor slab,
it's not for services elsewhere in
the restaurant or
kitchen.
Q. Right, and I have
just taken your guideline for the
steel away from your
40,000 valuation, that's how I got
$12,188.
A. No, but it's not
meant to be applied for this area, for
the cold room and --
Q. You mean there are
no M&E services involved in getting a
brew house working?
A. No, I am not saying
that.
Q. Well, then, if I
can't use 450 per square metre, I can't
use it at all.
A. No, what I'm doing
is when I have broken down my
11:22 valuation, I'm
following the quotations or variations,
so I'm working it on
the basis of what work is in each
particular quotation
or variation.
Q. Isn't that another
way of saying we should ignore
$450 per square
metre?
A. No, I am saying that
you should ignore it, I'm just
saying --
Q. Then I use 450 per
square metres.
A. No, you didn't let
me finish. What I am saying is you
are trying to apply
it at the wrong location and in the
wrong valuation.
The Mason Works quotation which you
referred to --
Q. Mr Crispin.
A. No, let me finish.
The Mason Works quotation for this
particular item is
basically dealing with the cold room
and the brew house
structure, and the floor.
M&E services are
dealt with under other items, so
you're trying to
sort of combine them together but
that's not how it
should be done and that's not the
intention.
Q. My question is
simple: can I apply $450 per square metre
to M&E works?
A. Yes, but you cannot
apply it in the way that you are
trying to apply it
for the cold room and the brew house.
Q. I am a complete
novice, Mr Crispin. I'm following your
11:23 guidance, $1.50 per
kilogram for the steel structure; am
I right?
A. $1.50, correct.
Q. Let's go back to my
very elementary calculations. For
the steel, page 433,
RSP's computation tells us that
18,541.1 kilos of
steel were used; am I right?
A. Correct, yes.
Q. So, I multiply it by
1.50 -- we all agreed -- that means
your cost of
steelwork and steel alone, am I right, is
that it's 27,811.65?
A. For labour and
materials.
Q. For steel and steel
alone?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. Meaning I deducted
this figure from your valuation --
I'm not doing
anything with Mason Works, and my clients
would kill me if I
do. I'm looking at your valuation,
Mr Crispin. Am I
right to then suspect that your
$40,000 valuation,
taking away the steelworks and
materials at
27,811.65, leaves all the other works, be
it mechanical,
electrical, air-conditioning, hacking,
sawing, wasting,
removal of debris, demolition -- all of
it is only now
valued at 12,188.35?
A. No, that's not
correct.
Q. Are you saying, Mr
Crispin, that when you value the brew
house at $40,000,
steel, M&E, structural, demolition,
11:26 all in, wasn't based
on $1.50 per kilogram for steel?
A. The $1.50 per
kilogram is based on the material and
labour cost for the
steel structure.
Q. So I am asking you,
when you arrive at $40,000 for works
which my clients
quoted $266,067, you valued all of that
at $40,000, didn't
you?
A. Well, I'm --
Q. Item 10.
A. No, no, I know. Let
me speak.
Firstly, when
you refer to the 226,000, that's for
the cold room, the
brew house and the mezzanine, so the
mezzanine is not
being dealt with, that's being taken
out, so it's dealing
with the cold room and the brew
house.
The particular
item that I have given by $40,000
valuation for, it's
for the cold room and brew house
structure and for
the floor slab, because M&E works come
under other
quotations.
Q. Let's look at item
10 of your valuation, page 160.
Do you remember,
Mr Crispin, I promised you that
I would be sticking
closely to your words. I'm asking
you simply, did you
value the entire construction and
brew house and cold
room structure at $40,000; "yes" or
"no"?
A. Yes.
11:28 Q. Sticking to your
valuation, you have testified that
steel comes at $1.50
per kilo, including labour and
material -- I'm
using that same figure applying to your
valuation, that's
all I am doing -- am I correct?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. So I come back to my
computation again, $1.50 multiplied
by 18,541 kilos
alone came to 27,811.65.
A. Correct, yes.
Q. So we eliminate all
the steel from your $40,000
valuation, it must
stand to reason that anything else
that's not still
related in your valuation is only worth
12,188.35 -- are we
correct?
A. For the cold room
and brew house structure?
Q. Right, so the
construction of the brew house and cold
room structure
included demolition, included structural,
included M&E works,
doesn't it -- otherwise you can't
get the brew going
-- I can't drink beer out of there?
A. No, that's not
correct. Firstly there's no
demolition -- there
is construction but there's not
demolition. As I
said before, M&E works are under other
quotations or
variations and have been looked at
separately. I am
referring to the cold room and brew
house structure.
Q. So what else are you
saying is there besides the steel?
A. For the cold room
and brew house structure, you mean?
11:30 Q. Yes.
A. There's the cold
room and brew house structure steel
structure and the
floor, the floor slab.
Q. No mechanical and
electrical installation at all? How
are we going to
drink our beer, Mr Crispin?
A. No, no, the brewery
equipment is a completely separate
item.
Q. And you don't have
to do any hacking, any installation
to make sure that
the electrical fittings fit?
A. The electrical --
any electrical works are under
separate quotations,
not under this quotation.
Q. Your valuation says
"for proposed construction and brew
house and cold room
structure".
A. Yes, and the
operative word is "structure".
Q. The operative worth
is not "construction"?
A. No, it's
"structure", which is what I have been saying.
Q. Let's take a
different tack, Mr Crispin. Let's look at
the quotation for
Mason Works that you have been
studying very
assiduously. Let me refer you to page 87
of your own
affidavit.
A. Yes.
Q. Item number 1,
"Preliminaries", 1.1, are you there?
A. I am, yes.
Q. "Application for
permit to pile, endorsement and
submission of all
building control documents for
11:32 structural works and
co-ordination with various
nominated subcon and
appointed site QPs and COW [clerk
of works]."
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have to do
that in the proposed construction of
brew house structure
and cold room for The Pump Room?
A. Yes.
Q. Insurance, 1.3. Do
you have to effect insurance?
A. There should already
be insurance for the project, so
I don't think there
should be additional insurance.
Q. All right. 2.0,
2.1, 2.2, they are all the steelworks
so we have covered
that, right?
Let's look at
2.3:
"Labour and
material to cast floor slab complete
with 1 layer of BRC
A10 and 140 mm thick grade C30
ready-mix concrete
to entire steel structure floor as
per RSP drawing
S/B/1/01 dated 30 October 2006."
That's not
steel, is it?
A. No.
Q. "2.4 Labour and
material to infill extended floor area
with high density
form complete with 1 layer BRC A10 and
top off with 140 mm
thick grade C30 concrete as per
discussion with Mr
Jiang of RSP."
We've got to
factor in those, don't we?
A. Correct, yes.
11:34 Q. All of this is part
of your $40,000 valuation minus the
steel, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. "2.5 Labour and
material to apply brush-on
waterproofing coat
to flooring ... 112 square metre."
That was the --
now I know the area of the brew
house.
A. No, no, it's not,
because that 112 includes upturns, so
that is the surface
area, not the floor area.
Q. But we do require
this labour and material to apply
brush-on
waterproofing coat on flooring, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. It's one of your
specialties, isn't it?
"2.6 Labour and
material to sand and cement screed
above flooring
include construction of scupper drain (as
discussed with Alex
Chasko) and level floor screed with
gradient to fall
toward drain."
We have to do
that, don't we?
A. Correct.
Q. "2.7 [Mason Works
had to] supply and install 300 x 300
homogenous tiles to
match kitchen type (as discussed
with Alex Chasko)
for entire floor inclusive of scupper
drain area -- 91.8
square metres."
Right?
A. Correct.
11:36 Q. So in fact the whole
restaurant plus brewery is about
91 square metres?
A. Sorry, say that
again?
Q. The floor area of
the entire restaurant and microbrewery
is actually about 91
square metres?
A. No, no. This is
referring to the brew house and cold
room, it's actually
a bit less.
Q. For the record, Mr
Ed Poole has shown me his
computation, it's 83
square metre, the entire premises;
would you agree with
that?
A. Sorry, 83 square
metres for ...?
Q. I'm sorry, in fact,
because this is for the brew house
structure itself, in
fact, yes, the floor area, you are
talking about the
brew house, yes, it is about
91.8 square metres
-- right?
A. No, I do not agree.
Q. It's a bit less than
that. How much less than that?
A. I calculated it at
about 75 square metres.
Q. Okay, 75 square
metres, I don't know where to apply my
450 per square
metre?
A. No, as I said
earlier, you are applying it in the wrong
place.
Q. Yes, I know, I'm
just a stubborn mathematician.
"2.8 Labour and
material to fabricate and install
stainless steel
solid flat bar hairline finished scupper
11:37 drain cover in
segments of approximately 1,200 mm length
times 300 mm width."
Am I correct --
you've got to do that for the brew
house, don't we?
A. It is a metal cover
for the scupper drain.
Q. We do need that,
don't we?
A. Well it's allowed
for and concluded.
Q. So it's all part of
your $40,000?
A. Yes.
COURT: Mr Ong, at this
juncture, we will take a five-minute
break.
(11.39 am)
(Short break)
(11.57 am)
COURT: Yes.
MR ONG: Shall we
continue, Mr Crispin?
A. Yes.
Q. I will take a step
back from my earlier line. Let's go
somewhere else,
shall we?
Let me take you
through note (b) at page 162 of your
affidavits, the
notes to your valuation report.
A. Yes.
Q. It says here:
"Many of the
quotations do not appear to have been
accepted by the
client", meaning Pump Room, isn't it?
12:01 A. Correct.
Q. So because they have
not been accepted by the client,
you were obliged to
do a valuation of the works; am
I correct?
A. No.
Q. It's in line with
your brief, isn't it, because you were
supposed to review
the pricing and reasonableness of the
works on the basis
that your clients didn't accept these
quotations?
A. No, no, I wasn't
saying that.
You're saying --
correct me if I am wrong -- that
many of the
quotations do not appear to have been
accepted as in, you
know, there is a dispute -- is that
what you are saying?
Q. No, I am saying
exactly what you are saying. I'm asking
you if you made your
valuation precisely because the
quotations have not
been accepted by your client?
A. I mean accepted, you
know, a formal acceptance; in other
words some have been
signed and chopped and some
haven't.
Q. Right. So you are
saying that you know they have not
been formally
accepted, right, which is why you made
your valuation,
isn't it?
A. I made my valuation
because I was asked to make
a valuation.
12:02 Q. You were asked to
make the valuation because that's your
job, basically?
A. Yes, because that's
what I was asked to do.
Q. So it's irrelevant
to you whether your clients had
accepted the
quotations or not?
A. Yes, my observation
--
Q. Answer my question,
Mr Crispin.
A. It's irrelevant
because that wasn't the point I was
trying to make.
The point I was
trying to make is that when I looked
at the various
quotations some were signed, and there
are examples which
are not signed, that's what I mean --
signed or confirmed.
Q. So whether your
clients signed or confirmed any
quotation is
irrelevant to your valuation?
A. Well, I still looked
at the quotations, whether they are
signed or not.
Q. Can you answer "yes"
or "no"?
A. It's still relevant
to my valuation, because I looked at
all the
documentation, but my observation was some of
quotations had been
formally accepted and some had not.
Q. If all the
quotations had been accepted, would you still
make your valuation?
A. I would still make
my valuation, yes.
Q. Even if each and
every quotation has been accepted?
12:04 A. Yes, because these
were accepted by The Pump Room, but
I would have
actually expected these to have been
accepted by the
project manager on behalf of the client,
The Pump Room in
this case.
Q. Anyway, let me just
take you through each and every
quotation for the
record. Item 2 of page 159 of your
report -- do you
have it?
A. Yes.
Q. This must be a
quotation for additional air-conditioning
works, VO1; am I
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. This quotation would
be found at page 69 of your
affidavit of
evidence-in-chief, I believe. If you look
at page 69 and page
70, the figure before GST is
$59,300, that must
be VO1 that you were referring to,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Let's see if it's
been accepted.
At page 70, the
bottom left-hand corner, above The
Pump Room's stamp
company stamp, do you see the word
"approved"?
A. I do, yes.
Q. So that's been
accepted, hasn't it?
A. It's been accepted
by The Pump Room, yes. As I said
earlier, I would
have expected it to actually have gone
12:06 through the project
manager.
Q. It's accepted by the
client -- that is the company chop,
isn't it?
A. It is, yes.
Q. "Yes" or "no"?
A. I said "yes".
Q. VO2, item number 3,
"Alterations and additions for the
gas works", the
price is $26,850, that must be at pages
71 and 72 of your
affidavit of evidence-in-chief, isn't
it?
A. Can you repeat the
pages, please?
Q. Pages 71 and 72 of
your affidavit of evidence-in-chief.
A. Yes.
Q. Let's look at the
top centre portion of the page.
A. On page 71?
Q. Page 72. That is
the signature of Ms Pauline Graham,
isn't it?
A. Honestly, the
signature, I don't know.
Q. Let me make it
easier. Can I draw your attention to
page 80 of your own
affidavit of evidence-in-chief.
A. Page 80, yes.
Q. That's the tax
invoice for Mason Works combining
variation order 1,
variation order 2, variation order 3
and variation order
4 in quotation 1615 (R1)/06. Do you
see a column that
says "Paid", a chop?
12:08 A. I see a chop, yes,
it says "Paid". But going back to
page 71, it wasn't
confirmed.
Q. That's because 71
has not been proceeded with. It's not
the same figure,
even.
A. I don't know, 71 is
talking about variation number 2.
Q. Well, the actual
variation number 2, if you look at the
figure at page 72,
the figure matches your item 3, VO2,
26,850; am I right?
A. Page 1 and page 2
are the from the same document.
Q. How can they be the
same if the prices are not the same?
A. No, on page 71, the
figure of 28,192.50 is including
GST, so if you
deduct GST it becomes 26,850, which is
the figure referred
to on page 52.
Q. Let me make it
easier for you.
A. No, I have not
finished. And then 26,850 is the figure
at page 80, which is
the tax invoice that you referred
me to. But at page
71 the quotation was not accepted.
Q. Okay. That's
probably because -- as you were
complaining of
incomplete documentation yesterday,
perhaps it would be
easier if I refer you to the
affidavit of
evidence-in-chief of Mr Lee Ka Ming, the
2st defendant's
bundle of AEICs, the thick one.
Pages 218 to
219. You compare that with your own
copy, this time
around, they are item for item the same,
aren't they?
12:12 A. Yes.
Q. It's VO2 of
Q1615(R1)/06-PumpRoom-WL, variation order 2,
do you agree?
A. Yes.
Q. If you turn to page
219, you will see that every single
item has been signed
off, signed against by Fred -- Fred
Wong, I'm sure,
that's the project manager -- and at the
bottom of it is the
company stamp of The Pump Room Pte
Ltd; am I correct?
A. Correct, yes.
MR VIJAY: Your Honour,
I didn't want to interrupt, sorry.
Questions like this
will pose a problem for me in
re-examination,
because a loaded question, ie "Fred Wong
is the project
manager ..." I would appreciate -- my
learned friend knows
that is in issue, so -- unless he
is asking this
witness whether Fred Wong was the project
manager, then I have
no objection.
MR ONG: I don't
understand the objection.
MR VIJAY: What I'm
saying is ask your question but please
do not put
controversial issues as part of the evidence,
so I am forced to
stand up and object.
MR ONG: I am sorry, I
don't know which part you are
referring to.
MR VIJAY: The point is
that your question included the fact
this has been
approved by Fred Wong, the project
12:13 manager, so I am
saying --
COURT: Yes, he just
wants you to refer to Fred Wong,
without --
MR VIJAY: Without
putting the adjective, yes, thank you,
your Honour.
MR ONG: I see.
Okay, now that I
understand. Mr Crispin, has VO2
been accepted by The
Pump Room Pte Ltd?
A. In this affidavit,
yes. I have not seen this
previously.
Q. Since we are at this
page 219 -- are you at page 219 of
the 2nd defendant's
bundle of affidavit -- that's
variation order 3,
isn't it? Let's see if it matches,
additions and
upgrading?
A. 219?
Q. Sorry, 220. That's
VO3, right?
A. 220 is VO3, yes.
Q. And it matches your
description, "additions and
upgrading for
electrical works"; right?
A. Correct.
Q. There's a signature,
on items 1.0 to 1.18; am I correct?
A. 1.0 to 1.18, yes,
there is a signature. I assume it
means collectively,
but it just says item 1.0 to 1.18,
it doesn't actually
make it --
Q. Let's not get ahead
of ourselves, let's go page by page.
12:15 Page 221, item 2.0,
"Additional high amp power points &
other", there we see
a signature and "(Item 2.1 to
2.9)", right?
A. Yes.
Q. Finally, we come to
page 222. After 2.9, do you see the
centre of the page,
the company stamp of The Pump Room
Pte Ltd?
A. Yes.
Q. Two signatures on
top?
A. Correct.
Q. So VO3 has been
accepted, hasn't it?
A. Yes, I agree.
Q. VO4, the next page,
223.
A. Yes.
Q. Title "Additional
Mechanical Ventilation Works"; do you
see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see the
signature and "(Item 1.0 to 16.0)"?
A. Yes.
Q. Let's go to the next
page, 224. It ends at item 16,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. After that you see
the Pump Room's chop, two signatures?
A. Correct.
Q. So VO4 has also been
accepted, hasn't it?
12:17 A. Yes.
Q. We are halfway
there. I'm sorry to trouble you, can you
refer back to your
own affidavit, page 43.
A. Page 43, yes.
Q. We have here
"Demolition works and new brick walls for
The Pump Room at
Block B Clarke Quay", does that
correspond to your
item number 6?
A. Yes.
Q. $45,300 is that
right?
A. Correct.
Q. The bottom
right-hand corner of the page, "Pump Room Pte
Ltd. Authorised
signatory and company stamp", correct?
A. That's what it says,
yes. This one wasn't chopped.
Q. Has it been
accepted?
A. Well, I assume it's
been accepted, yes. It wasn't
chopped.
Q. Item 7 is found in
page 47 of your affidavit of
evidence-in-chief;
am I correct?
A. Sorry, at page?
Q. Page 47.
A. Yes, correct.
Q. For this one I think
you have to look at page 256 of the
2nd defendant's
bundle of affidavits -- have you got it?
A. Page 256, yes.
Q. This is a quotation
for demolition of existing party
12:20 wall and erection of
new cool room wall. There is
a signature at the
bottom left-hand side, right?
A. Excuse me, the
bottom of page 256, I can see somebody's
signature, yes.
Q. I'm so sorry, Mr
Crispin, I found it better at your own
affidavit, page 48.
We are looking at the same
quotation, I assure
you. Pages 47 and 48, they are
a continuation,
really -- am I correct -- the subject
matter is
"Demolition of existing party wall and
erection of new cold
room wall."
A. Yes.
Q. So at the bottom
left-hand corner of page 47 there is
a signature, at the
bottom right-hand corner of page 48,
the continuation
sheet, you have a company stamp and
Mr William Graham's
signature, don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. So item 7 has been
accepted by the client, hasn't it?
A. Correct.
Q. We now come to item
8 of your valuation at page 160.
I was in a quandary
for a while because your item 8 says
no quotation so I
was rather hard put to do my digging.
But eureka, I found
it at page 259 of that thick bundle
that you have, of
the 2nd defendant's affidavit.
A. Correct, yes.
Q. Because your item
says, "site preparation and works at
12:23 unit 10 for brewery
installation", it's actually quoted
as site preparation
and access path, and the item before
GST found at page
262, comes up to exactly 21,350;
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So if you were to go
back to page 259 for it, there is
confirmation by Mr
William Graham's signature, isn't
there?
A. I mean, it's signed
again, not chopped.
Q. So has it been
accepted?
A. I assume so, yes,
not particularly well, but it has.
Q. Okay. Now we have
come back to the infamous item 9 of
your valuation. I
have turned my client's premises
upside down but I
can't find it. Can you help us,
Mr Crispin?
A. Well, I have not had
a opportunity yet to go to the
plaintiff's
documents. As I said yesterday I passed all
the documents back.
Q. I have two problems
on this then, Mr Crispin. Firstly,
are my clients
charging $80,000 for something that we
can't see? Are
they?
A. Well, I agree it
remains a mystery at present because
I have not been able
to find the document.
Q. Following on from
that mystery, you have valued
something that my
clients have no evidence of having
12:25 charged The Pump
Room at $10,000. What did you value,
Mr Crispin?
A. I valued -- as I
said yesterday, I remember seeing
a document for
structural works at the floor of the
brewery and I saw
that document within the pile of
documents that I
borrowed from the plaintiff at the
beginning of when I
started looking through the
documentation. As I
also said, I have not had a chance
to go back through
it again, but my understanding was
that it was for
flooring works and flooring works are
really covered
elsewhere.
Q. Let me take stock,
Mr Crispin.
A. Sorry?
Q. Let me take stock, I
have not seen this quotation, the
2nd defendant has
not seen this quotation -- am I right?
It's not in evidence
before this court; am I right?
A. Well, I have not
gone through all the documents but I'm
willing to accept
that.
Q. Humour me. If I
asked around the room, "Has anyone else
seen this
document?" Apparently not, wouldn't you
agree?
A. Apparently not, as
you say, yes.
Q. May I invite you to
take this item off your valuation.
A. Well, if it can't be
found, I have no objection.
Q. On behalf of Mr
Sreenivasan I'll thank you for reducing
12:27 his client's
liability by $70,000?
MR SREENIVASAN: Alleged
liability, please.
MR ONG: Item 10, the
controversial document, page 98 of
your own AEIC, Mr
Crispin. That's for the proposed
construction of brew
house and cold room for The Pump
Room at Clarke Quay;
am I right?
A. Correct.
Q. Confirmation by
company stamp, Mr William Graham's
signature; am I
right?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. Has it been accepted
by the client?
A. Yes.
Q. There we go.
Item 11, page
108 of your own affidavit of
evidence-in-chief --
do you have it?
A. 108.
Q. And page 109,
continuing, the sum a quoted as 12,453
which is before GST;
that's found in page 109 of your
affidavit. So the
covering sheet at page 108, bottom
right-hand side
corner, The Pump Room's company stamp,
William Graham's
signature; am I right?
A. Correct.
Q. So it's been
accepted?
A. Well --
Q. Yes?
12:29 A. You have been using
the word "accepted" -- I notice it
uses the word
"confirmation", so I assume "confirmation"
means accepted.
Q. I'm just asking you,
"yes" or "no", has it been
accepted?
A. Well, it's been
confirmed by The Pump Room to be
strictly accurate.
Q. Has it been
accepted?
A. Well, as far as I
can see, it's been accepted by The
Pump Room, who is
the client but who is not the project
manager and, as I
said earlier, I would have expected it
to have been
approved by the project manager.
Q. Has it been accepted
by The Pump Room Pte Ltd?
A. It has, yes.
Q. Thank you. Item
number 1 -- I'm sorry, I don't think
I need to deal with
it.
Item number 13,
finally -- I beg your pardon, let me
confer with my
client. (Pause.)
It seems we
can't find the quotation either.
A. Sorry, which?
Q. It seems it has
taken on the same air as the $80,000.
A. Sorry, what are you
referring to?
Q. Well, I mean where
is your source document for saying
that my clients have
charged $19,952?
A. Variation number 3.
Variation number 3, I think there
12:32 was more than one
variation number 3.
Q. Okay, I think I have
found it at page 119 of your
affidavit -- 118 to
119 -- sorry, 117, yes.
A. I think that there
was a variation number 3 and then it
was superseded by
another variation number 3.
Q. At 119, it is the
closest my client could find to fit
your report of
additional electrical work, and
unfortunately, the
sum quoted in this variation order 3
was $14,738, so that
doesn't quite match your $19,952.
A. As I said, there
were two variation number 3s.
Q. I have kind of a
wacky explanation, though, Mr Crispin,
your quotation of
$19,952, when one deducts it from the
$14,738 that is in
my variation order 3, one comes up
with $5,000. That
comes to be your valuation.
A. I mean, to clarify,
there were two variation number 3s.
I am referring to
page 118, but there was a superseded
variation number 3.
Q. So the continuation
sheet to 118 actually says that the
quoted sum is
$14,738 -- that's not quite 19,952, is it?
A. No, I agree. I
agree. But I am saying that there was
an earlier variation
number 3.
Q. Could you find it
for us in your --
A. I'm trying to. I
know it existed because it's referred
to at page 118.
Q. You are the only one
in this room who knew the $80,000
12:35 quotation existed.
A. No, no, if you look
at page 118, it says at the top,
"This quotation
supersedes our previous VO3 quote dated
January 2007."
Q. Well, the superseded
quote obviously has not been
exhibited, so this
118 continues on to 119, that's the
continuation sheet.
The items, even the numerical
sequence match. You
see, 118 actually goes from items 1
to 8, 119 continues
with item number 9.
A. Yes, that I agree.
I'm just saying that there was an
earlier variation
number 3. (Pause.)
Q. Perhaps if I can
suggest some perspective to this --
I mean, at the end
of the day, out of 13 items we have
already accounted
for 12 of them, shall we just reserve
this point and look
at the overall picture.
Items 2 to 12 of
your valuation report, less item 9,
which has been
generously withdrawn, are all quotations
accepted by The Pump
Room; am I correct?
A. Okay, just to
clarify, item 12 wasn't, and then an
earlier one in my
affidavit, in my documentation wasn't
but in the 2nd
defendant's affidavit was.
Q. Well, there's no
issue because item 12, your valuation
and the variation
work, according to your report,
matches dollar for
dollar.
A. Yes, but I am just
highlighting it because you didn't
12:40 highlight it.
Q. So have they been
accepted by the client -- they must
be?
A. Well, the work was
done although it wasn't accepted.
Q. Now you say it's not
accepted?
A. No, I said the works
was done although it wasn't
accepted because at
page 129 the quotation wasn't
accepted, it wasn't
signed and chopped. (Pause.)
Q. Okay, let me make it
easier then. Items 2 to 11 of your
valuation report,
less item 9 that has been withdrawn,
have all been
accepted by your clients.
A. I am sorry, can you
repeat that, please?
Q. We have taken you
through each and every one of those
items, you have
confirmed that they have been accepted
by your client --
yes?
A. Correct. You didn't
actually repeat the question,
I asked you to
repeat the question.
Q. So is it a "yes" or
"no"?
A. Maybe you can say it
again, please.
Q. Have the quotations
in items 2 right down to item 11,
except for item 9,
been accepted by The Pump Room
Pte Ltd?
A. Okay, down to item
11, you said?
Q. Yes.
A. Correct. What I
also said was that one of the copies in
12:42 my affidavit is not
accepted, although I see it is
signed and chopped
--
Q. So have they been
accepted?
A. Yes, I agree.
Q. Right.
Item 12, since
the amount claimed and the valuation
matches, we are in
agreement, aren't we?
A. Agreement of what?
Q. That the valuation
for the works and the quotation for
the work are in
order?
A. We are in agreement
regarding the valuation, in other
words the cost of
the work, but it wasn't signed and
chopped.
Q. I am not asking
about signing and chopping here, I'm
asking whether they
are in agreement -- are they the
same?
A. Regarding the
figures, yes.
Q. Right, because this
is a valuation report, isn't it?
A. Correct.
Q. We are only in issue
when the figures are different --
right?
A. Correct.
Q. So, are the figures
the same?
A. Yes.
Q. Do we have issues --
do we have differences in opinion?
12:43 A. My only point was
that it wasn't signed and chopped, but
other than that, no.
Q. Are we in agreement
that the valuation and the quotation
are dollar for
dollar the same; "yes" or "no"?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. Mr Crispin, let me
go to the CPG rates for the
structured steel
again. Do you agree that based on
CPG's schedule of
rates for structured steelworks and
materials, at page
430 of the 2nd defendant's bundle of
documents, under
items 1.1A and B, "solid section" and
"hollow section",
the CPG chartered quantity surveyors
value the materials
and labour for mild steel members
used in structural
steelwork and metalwork, BS5950 grade
S275, is $3.50 per
kilogram?
A. Yes.
Q. You have taken the
cost of materials from the section of
the same booklet and
applied your valuation of labour
to -- I think you
started with $1.20 as the base price
for the materials in
supply and delivery, you added a
30 cents component
on top of that for the labour; is
that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So your $1.50
comprises about 30 cents for the labour?
A. Correct.
Q. At $3.50 per
kilogram at CPG's rate, they are taking the
12:47 same computation as
you, aren't they, that the cost of
material supply and
deliver was $1.20 per kilogram?
A. Sorry, for the
$3.50?
Q. Yes, their $3.50 is
made up actually of two components,
materials and
labour, excluding supply and delivery,
right? You have
agreed with us that the $1.20 was
purely for the
materials supply and delivery, so the
difference between
$1.20 and $3.50 makes up their labour
component as being
$2.30; am I right?
A. Let me just check,
just give me a moment, please.
The $3.50
includes the cost the material plus --
Q. Labour. And labour,
right? And the labour has been --
A. You are answering
the question for me.
The $3.50
includes the cost of material and other
items which were --
Q. Set out in the
preamble.
A. Yes.
Q. In that entire book.
A. In the preamble in
the photocopy that I was --
Q. And your $1.20 was
taken from the very same book as
being only the cost
of the materials from supply and
delivery to site --
A. Yes.
Q. -- right? So it
stands to reason that this very same
book must have taken
the $3.50, deducted the $1.20 for
12:49 supply and delivery,
to make up all the other components
of the labour, isn't
it?
A. No, you can't make
that assumption. You have to refer
back to the CPG
book.
Q. Okay, tell me where
in the CPG book does it tell us not
to make that
assumption?
A. That's what I am
going to explain. If you refer back --
Q. No, you don't have
to explain, Mr Crispin, tell me where
in the CPG booklet
-- you have it all before you, it has
been admitted in
evidence, show us why it shouldn't be
applied that way?
A. That's what I am
attempting to do so but you must let me
speak and I need to
go one step at a time to explain.
I wanted to refer
back to the other structural steel
section first,
because that will make it a little bit
clearer. I think
that section was under section (d).
COURT: Why don't you
take your time and look for it and we
will adjourn for
lunch. 2.30 pm.
(12.50 pm)
(The
luncheon adjournment)
(2.35 pm)
COURT: Yes.
MR ONG: Mr Crispin, if
you will bear with me I will try to
wrap up everything
and finish as soon as possible.
There are just a few
final points.
14:36 Is it fair to
say that where we just adjourned, your
valuation of the
price of structured steel beams and
labour is $1.50 per
kilogram, whereas the CPG's fixed
schedule of rates,
materials and labour included, is
$3.50 per kilogram
-- is it fair to say?
A. Okay, I think what
you asked me beforehand was firstly
to confirm the
$1.50, and then the other figure in the
CPG was the $3.50.
Q. Both these figures
are talking about the price of the
materials with
labour added on to it; is that a correct
statement?
A. Both figures include
labour, yes, amongst other things
to more or less
degrees, and then you were asking me --
Q. That's all I was
asking you.
A. No, it wasn't.
Q. For now this is all
I'm asking you.
A. No, I was asked --
you were asking me regarding the
$3.50 less $1 --
Q. Mr Crispin, that's
not my question now.
COURT: All right,
proceed.
MR ONG: Okay, I'm just
asking you, right now, is there
a range of opinion
between your $1.50 and CPG's $3.50?
A. Sorry, a range of
opinion -- what do you mean?
Q. That means that
there is a range between -- a difference
of opinion between
your $1.50, materials and labour, and
14:38 CPG's $3.50,
materials and labour?
A. Well, in fact, what
I was saying is that they are really
referring to two
different things. The $3.50 figure is
a -- firstly it's
all-encompassing figure because it
includes materials
and labour and it includes whatever
is in the preambles
which is listed out and that has
given a --
Q. Okay, let's read the
preamble then.
A. I was going to read
it but ...
Q. No, please, you see,
the trouble, Mr Crispin, I'm asking
you for a simple
"yes" or "no" answer.
A. I'm trying to
explain my answer and you are interrupting
me.
Q. Can we agree to
answer "yes" or "no" first before we go
to explanations?
A. Okay, then ask me a
"yes" or "no" question and then
I will give my
explanation.
Q. I'm asking, isn't
your materials and labour $1.50 per
kilogram for steel
and CPG's materials and labour for
steel is $3.50 -- is
that "yes" or "no"?
A. Sorry, what was the
question part?
Q. Is your price, your
valuation of the structured steel,
the materials and
labour, $1.50 per kilogram?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn't CPG's rate for
materials and labour $3.50 per
14:39 kilogram?
A. CPG's materials --
Q. Fixed schedule of
rates.
A. It's materials,
labour, profit, et cetera, because it's
also included items
in the preamble.
Q. Where does it say
"profit" in the preamble?
A. Now I am referring
to the CPG document in its entirety
and I'm referring to
page -- okay, it's at the beginning
of section (e), I
think page 1, I can't see the number
but I think it's
page 1, but I am looking at the
preambles, page E1,
and then on the right-hand column it
says, halfway down
the page:
"Unless
otherwise stated, the following shall be
deemed to be
included with all items ..."
So it concludes
item (a) which is the labour and
which has been
referred to.
Q. I'm asking you where
does it say "profit"?
A. I am going read down
to that. Other items, and then
down to item (j), it
says, "Establishment charges
overhead charges,
preliminaries and profit."
Q. Okay, does it say
that if we eliminate profit then these
rates won't apply?
A. No, it doesn't say
that.
Q. So back to my
question: you are saying $1.50 materials
and labour, CPG is
saying $3.50 materials and labour;
14:41 correct?
A. No, because the
$3.50 is referred to in the schedules of
rates which includes
the items in the preambles, which
includes, amongst
other things, establishment charges,
overhead charges,
preliminaries and profit.
COURT: Is it valid to
include all this?
A. Sorry, is it.
COURT: Is it proper to
include all this?
A. Well, that's what is
referred to in the preambles and it
does say "unless
otherwise stated, the following shall
be deemed to be
included with all items".
COURT: Did you include
all these items somewhere else?
A. Well, if they are to
be included elsewhere, then you
wouldn't use the
$3.50 figure, but I'm saying that this
$3.50 figure --
COURT: What is your
figure using all this?
A. My figure of $1.50
is just for materials and labour,
then there's
additional costs over and above that.
COURT: So what is your
total, based upon their method of
calculation?
A. I've actually split
it up, so I have said that the
materials and labour
only is the --
COURT: Can you find out
what is the figure?
A. The figure I was
referring to is the $1.50 multiplied by
the 18,500 --
14:43 MR ONG: Mr Crispin, we
are talking about materials and
labour, that's all,
we're not talking about the 28,000
tonnes anymore.
A. Yes, so materials
and labour is purely the $1.50 figure.
Q. And you are saying
CPG is dead wrong?
A. No, I am not saying
that.
Q. If you are not
saying that then just --
A. No, let me say --
Q. -- simply answer
"yes" or "no" first or I'm going to ask
the judge to ask you
for the answer.
A. It's not a question
of right or wrong, it is a question
of which figure is
specific and which figure is general.
COURT: Let me put it
this way: do you find fault with the
things that are in
the other person's figure, leave
aside the figure,
just the things that were taken into
account before they
came to --
A. The preambles, et
cetera? The preambles are acceptable;
the items, I have no
issue with.
COURT: Fine. So if you
find the preambles acceptable, why
didn't you take all
those things into account?
A. No, I have taken
those into account separately --
COURT: Fine, if you
have taken all that into account can
you let us have the
final figure. They put it as $3.50;
I know you put it
elsewhere, but what is your final
figure? If you are
coming back to 1.50 then stand by
14:44 it.
A. I stand by that
figure but I have also included
preliminaries as a
separate figure, which is $1,200.
COURT: For the last
time, if the other side is $3.50, what
is your figure,
taking into account everything they have
taken into account
unless you say they have taken into
account things that
should not have been taken into
account?
A. Okay, if it's an
all-encompassing figure for everything,
to compare to the
$3.50, it would be $2.16 per kilogram.
MR ONG: So now your
final figure is $2.16 per kilogram
because materials
and labour --
A. Now I'm including
preliminaries --
Q. Right, so you have
--
COURT: You did not
include this?
A. Sorry?
COURT: Previously you
did not include this?
A. The previous figure
of $1.50 is purely materials and
labour.
COURT: So in your
conclusion about the excess of more than
half a million paid,
how does this new figure of yours
affect that figure?
A. No, no, what I'm
being asked to do is really to
represent my figures
in a different format, and my
figure --
14:46 COURT: So it makes no
difference?
A. No, because the
$1.50 figure was just for supply and
delivery; the $1.50
figure is for supply, delivery and
labour.
COURT: And labour was
in your report?
A. Yes, labour was a
separate figure; now I have added --
it's included.
COURT: Fine, now you
have gone past $2?
A. Now I am adding in
preliminaries. Preliminaries, I had
actually allowed
$1,200 for.
COURT: Everything?
A. But I think I had
better just re-write it because that
figure is not quite
correct.
COURT: Did you give
$1,000-over for everything in the --
A. For the
preliminaries, for the brew house and cold room,
I gave a figure of
$1,200.
COURT: But now you have
increased it by 50 cents?
A. I think maybe I can
just recalculate it, if you can give
me a few minutes.
MR ONG: Just to check,
so you are not keen on $2.16
anymore?
A. Just give me a few
minutes to do it properly.
Q. Just let me know
"yes" or "no" first.
A. No.
Q. No, no more 2.16?
14:47 A. No, correct. Let me
do it properly and I will let you
know. (Pause.)
Q. Yes? What's the
magic figure, Mr Crispin?
A. I wouldn't describe
it as magic but it's $1.56 per
kilogram and that
includes materials, delivery and
labour.
Q. So let me get you
right, Mr Crispin, it was $1.50 to
$2.16 and now it's
$1.56; is that correct?
A. No, because --
Q. "Yes" or "no"?
A. No, it's not because
I told you I corrected my figure
just now, and also
the $1.56 now includes preliminaries.
Q. What was the figure
before you corrected -- wasn't it
$2.16? I am sorry,
Mr Crispin, I have to be firm on
this point.
A. No, that's okay, I'm
simply telling you I wanted more
time to do it
accurately which is what I have done. So
the figure for
materials, delivery, labour and including
preliminaries is
$1.56 per kilogram.
COURT: How did you get
$2.16 just now?
A. No, that was my
mistake, but now I have written it out
quite clearly.
MR ONG: You are telling
the court that yesterday it was
$1.20, that was a
mistake; and it was $1.50 and that is
also a mistake?
14:50 A. No, no, the figure
of $1.20 is for materials and
delivery; the figure
of $1.50 is for materials, delivery
and labour; the
figure of $1.56 is for materials,
delivery, labour and
preliminaries.
COURT: There is a
difference of almost $2 between you and
the other?
A. Yes, correct. And
as I've said before, the figure of
$3.50 is a general
figure; the figure of $1.20 and then
leading on to $1.50
and $1.56 is a specific figure.
It's specific
because it relates to particular steel
dimensions; the
$3.50 figure does not refer to any
particular
dimensions.
COURT: How do you know?
A. Because it says. If
you refer to the $3.50 figure it's
just referring to
mild steel members in general terms,
but then, in the CPG
publication, which is what
I referred to at
page D29, it's giving specific supply
and delivery figures
for different sizes of structural
beams or columns.
COURT: Please carry on.
MR ONG: Can I make it
easier for you, Mr Crispin, wouldn't
it be fairer to say
there is a price range from
$1.50 per kilogram
to $3.50 per kilogram for steel,
materials and
labour, but when you were to take into
account the
considerations for the particular project in
14:53 The Pump Room, you
decided to arrive at the figure now
of $1.56 per kg --
is that a fair characterisation of
your explanation?
A. Well, I think it's
an oversimplification. It's not --
Q. If it's an
oversimplification then just say it's not
a fair
characterisation. Let me come to something
that's fair. I will
wait all day until you come up with
up with a fair
characterisation to explain this
difference.
A. The fair
characterisation is very simple, it's to refer
to page D29 of the
CPG document and to look under the
heading of "Column
Sections" and "Universal Beam
sections" and then
to look at the particular dimensions
for structural steel
members and to see that there is
a particular figure
for supply and delivery in relation
to a dimension of
steel. If one refers to the $3.50
figure, albeit an
all-encompassing figure, it doesn't
refer specifically
to any size or type of steel member,
because it includes
a whole mixture, including girders,
roof trusses,
purlin, cleats and brackets, so it's
obviously a general
figure, whereas page D29 is
a specific figure.
And given the choice between the
two, obviously I
should use the one that is specific.
Q. Before you got to
the one that's specific, we were
actually talking
about the general, Mr Crispin, so
14:54 I need you to stick
to my questions.
Let's try
again. As close as I understand it, the
only compass point I
have from you is that $1.20 per
kilogram is the
price of the materials plus supply and
delivery; am I
correct?
A. No, because that's
the price for a specific dimension of
steel.
Q. I'm back to your
$1.20 for materials, I have always been
at the same
question, Mr Crispin, materials and labour,
materials and labour
-- am I correct? Why are you going
to many other areas
that I have not been to?
I am going to
ask the question again. I hope I can
really move on with
this. I need your help, Mr Crispin.
Shall we start
with $1.20 cost of material?
A. Okay.
Q. You are fine with
that, right, that's found in page D29?
That was your basis
all along, that the cost of
materials in this
particular project was $1.20 per
kilogram. We are at
the same starting point,right?
A. Correct, yes.
Q. Now I'm still going
back to the added labour that you --
your professional
opinion -- would bring us to, so
perhaps let me take
you now to page E6 of the CPG guide
and work on your
assumption.
A. I'm at page E6, yes.
14:57 Q. You can't find E6?
A. No, I am here, I'm
waiting.
Q. 9.2, the rates.
A. Yes.
Q. So we understand
from the general preamble that now, in
the fixed schedule
of rates, we are talking about
materials and
labour, right, so items 9.2(a), (b), (c),
(d), (e) and (f) are
all items of labour, aren't they,
for steel?
A. Yes, I mean under
the preambles we're talking about
materials, labour
and other things.
Q. Correct. I want to
go to all the materials and other
things and get your
expert view on this, you see? So we
start with the
baseline, $1.20, materials, supply
delivery, no labour
at all -- at all -- fair?
A. Okay, yes.
Q. So, Mr Crispin, how
would you price in purely labour in
rolling margin --
you add -- how much would you add on
to your $1.20?
A. Well, I wouldn't
price it on that basis, I'm afraid, so
I can't give you an
answer, because I don't think that
that's the way to
price it.
Q. Okay, but you agreed
with us yesterday that you made
your pricing based
on item (c) and item (d) in The Pump
Room project, isn't
it?
14:58 A. Yes. But when I --
Q. "Yes" or "no" first,
please, please, please.
A. Okay, my --
Q. "Yes" or "no"?
A. Then, sorry, maybe
you can repeat the question, please.
Q. Yesterday, before
this court, you were bargaining with
Mr Sreenivasan that
your labour, when you factored in
your computation of
the materials and labour for The
Pump Room project,
was only inclusive of items (c) and
(d), that was how
you arrived at your $1.50 per
kilogram, isn't
it? "Yes" or "no"?
A. Actually I can't
remember which items specifically were
included yesterday
because I remember there was
reference to the two
sections of preambles.
COURT: You are the
expert, Mr Crispin.
A. Yes.
COURT: You must know
what you were talking about yesterday.
A. I know what I'm
talking about.
COURT: Then now you say
you can't remember?
A. No, because there's
various items -- in simple terms I'm
talking purely about
labour. That's my understanding,
that's my
understanding of what we are referring to.
MR ONG: Yes, I am
asking you to price purely labour. I am
not talking about
anything else. I just want to know
your expert opinion
compared against CPG?
15:00 A. Yes, but as a
general rate, you cannot price labour in
on this basis, there
is no logic to it.
COURT: So what is your
price then?
A. The way I priced it
was specifically for the cold room
and pump room.
COURT: And what was
your basis for pricing it?
A. My figure and I
assume we are going to the $1.50.
COURT: Let me make it
clear. You can use any figure --
MR ONG: It's $1.56 now?
COURT: -- but you have
to justify your figure.
A. I'm happy to do
that.
COURT: Fine.
A. But firstly I'm
saying, with the schedule of rates, you
cannot really mix
labour and materials together under
all circumstances.
You have to look at specific
circumstances, so in
the case of the pump room
structure, I worked
out my figure on the basis of $1.20
per kilogram
multiplied by a certain mass, I then added
specifically a
labour cost for the construction of that
metal structure, and
adding those two figures
together --
COURT: I know that, but
what is your basis for arriving at
that figure for
labour?
A. Okay, the basis --
COURT: You are not in
court to just say, "I chose this
15:01 figure", you have to
explain how --
A. Yes.
COURT: -- you got that
figure and that's what we are all
waiting to hear from
you.
A. I have assessed the
labour figure on how long I think it
will take to
construct that structure, so I've made my
assessment of how
long I think it takes to construct --
COURT: So have you
shown how long it will take in your
report?
A. In my report, no.
In my workings, yes. My figure,
actually, for the --
COURT: Your workings
are not before the court?
A. No.
COURT: So can you
please explain?
A. Yes. Do you want me
to write it out?
COURT: Mr Vijay, you
have an expert witness, he has not got
the workings for us,
he has just given me his
conclusions. It is
trite that experts' conclusions must
be justified by his
calculations, et cetera. Without
that, how can they
cross-examine?
MR VIJAY: Perhaps the
witness can explain.
Explain your
basis in calculation, not write it out.
A. Okay.
COURT: Well, they don't
know how you calculated, how long
it would take to
build, then you are just plucking the
15:03 figure from the air.
A. No, I am not doing
that. My calculation is based on the
figure of $8,400 for
labour.
COURT: It's not the
figure which is important now, it's how
you reached the
figure.
A. Well, it's broken
down into certain elements, so that's
why I'm saying why
don't I write it out and then I just
explain it.
COURT: All right.
MR SREENIVASAN: Your
Honour, if I may be of assistance.
The normal measure
of units of labour will be man days,
so if the witness
can say how many man days --
COURT: How many people
are involved?
MR SREENIVASAN: How
many man days -- it can be 20 people
for 10 days, what
per cent for --
A. That's what I was
going to do.
MR SREENIVASAN: Perhaps
you can tell his Honour how many
man days.
A. Let me write it out
because there's more than --
MR SREENIVASAN: Perhaps
you can tell his Honour how many
man days?
A. No, no, let me write
it out because it's not just one
type of worker. I
am assuming two different types of
worker; I am
assuming a skilled worker and a labourer.
COURT: Yes, you just --
how long will you take, roughly?
15:04 A. I think it would
take approximately 10 days, 10 working
days.
COURT: No, how long
will it take to you write it?
A. Two or three
minutes. (Pause.)
MR ONG: All right, how
many man days are we at?
A. I am saying 10
working days, or 10 man days, but I'm
using two different
types of labour; I am saying you
need some skilled
labour and some labourers. For the
skilled labour I am
saying that they are $200 per day;
in other words one
skilled labourer is $200 a day and
I'm using two
skilled labourers, and for 10 days.
In addition, I
am saying you need labourers at the
same time. The
labourers I am pricing at $100 per day
but I am saying you
need four of them for the same
10 days, and then
you need some cleaning up at the end,
which I have allowed
two labourers two days to do. So
that is the labour
cost which then I used in order to
get my $1.50 per
kilogram for materials plus labour.
COURT: Where do you get
your figure for the amount for
skilled labourer?
A. Well, there are
various market rates. There are base
rates in the CPG
guidelines but they don't include
extras like CPF
insurance, so I'm taking what I consider
are market rates.
COURT: So you are
saying if you go out to the market today
15:08 and you want to hire
a skilled labourer you pay him this
figure?
A. Well, I mean two
years ago, at the time when the work
was carried out.
COURT: Yes, yes, I am
referring to that.
A. Yes, correct.
COURT: Then if a
contractor provides it, does he include
a profit margin?
A. Yes, I am including
profit, CPF, whatever it may be
within those
figures.
COURT: Do you know how
much would be paid to the skilled
labourer, then, if
you include profit, et cetera --
what's your
percentage of profit?
A. Well, I think that
whether it's the skilled labourer or
the labourer, they
would probably get about 60 per cent
of those figures --
actually themselves.
COURT: Thank you.
MR ONG: Let me simplify
this, Mr Crispin, the figures are
all beyond me now.
Is it fair to say another quantity
surveyor may
reasonably have a slightly different rate
from yours?
A. Yes.
Q. And he wouldn't be
wrong, am I right? I mean, it
wouldn't be wrong
for him to have a slightly different
rate from yours?
15:10 A. I agree, yes.
Q. So there would be a
range within which a reasonable
expert surveyor may
differ in the price per kilogram for
materials and
labour; is that fair?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. That was
the question I was reaching for,
your Honour.
Did Mr Vijay
inform you that where there is a range
of different
opinions, you must inform the court?
MR VIJAY: I object to
this question. What is the basis of
involving me in your
questioning? I have nothing to do
with this. You
question his report and his findings;
leave me out of it.
COURT: Rephrase your
question.
MR ONG: Yes, your
Honour.
Do you agree
that an expert's duty to the court
should be to inform
the court that there is a range of
different opinions
as to pricing; "yes" or "no"?
A. No, I don't think
so.
COURT: You think so?
A. No, I said --
MR ONG: He says no,
your Honour.
A. -- I don't think so.
COURT: You don't think
so?
A. No, because I would
have thought that it's understood
15:12 that different
experts can always have different views.
COURT: No, but his
point is if there is a range of opinion
as to what it should
be, you should have stated, "There
is a range of
opinion but in my view ...", that's what
he's saying.
A. Well, there might be
a range of opinion on the labour
elements, there
shouldn't be a range of opinion on the
material element.
COURT: All right.
MR ONG: I think I will
move on, your Honour.
COURT: Yes. Make your
submissions.
MR ONG: Mr Crispin, I
am just going to suggest to you that
in making your
valuations in your report -- items 1
to 13, pages 159 to
161 of your affidavit -- you relied
mainly on Mr
Graham's assurance in your assumption B
that the majority of
quotations were not accepted by the
client; do you agree
or disagree?
A. I disagree.
Q. I further put it to
you that such an assumption is now
demonstrated to be
incorrect; do you agree?
A. Sorry, I'm just
trying to understand your question.
Q. You assumed that the
majority of quotations were not
accepted by the
client.
A. Okay, I disagree.
Q. I further suggest to
you that many assumptions in your
15:14 valuation are now
doubtful at best; do you agree?
A. I disagree.
MR ONG: I have no
further questions, your Honour.
COURT: All right.
Re-examination by MR VIJAY
MR VIJAY: May it please
your Honour.
It was suggested
to you whether you relied on
Graham's
representation that the majority of the
quotations were not
accepted, and you denied it.
Can I ask you to
clarify whether Mr Graham made any
representations at
all about the case in February 2006?
MR ONG: Your Honour,
isn't it that a leading question,
whether Mr Graham
made representations to him?
MR VIJAY: The question
was whether Mr Graham represented --
COURT: Can you just
rephrase the question and move on.
MR VIJAY: Were there
any other -- let me think which way
I can phrase it
without ...
COURT: Take your time.
MR VIJAY: Thank you,
your Honour.
First, you deny,
by which you mean that Mr Graham
did not represent to
you that the majority of the
quotations were not
accepted; right?
MR ONG: Again it's
leading question, surely.
MR VIJAY: I have not
asked my question.
COURT: All right.
15:16 MR VIJAY: My question
is: when Mr Graham instructed you,
can you explain what
instructions or representation he
made to you?
MR ONG: Again, I'm
sorry, your Honour, he is still asking
whether
representations were made. The who, what,
where, when, why and
how does not change the text of the
leading.
COURT: Move on then.
MR VIJAY: You were
asked about some contractual terms,
right, which was
written on one of Ed Poole's drawings;
do you remember?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you explain,
first of all, how did you discover
that?
A. The contractual
terms that I was asked about earlier,
which were actually
read out to me, was on page 154 of
my affidavit, and --
MR ONG: I'm sorry, your
Honour, I'm of the impression that
he is an expert
witness. The questions seem to relate
to facts in dispute.
MR VIJAY: Well, you
should have thought about it when you
were asking him
questions on the contract.
MR ONG: I am entitled
to ask him anything when I'm
cross-examining him,
Mr Vijay.
MR VIJAY: So am I
entitled to re-examine on anything that
15:18 you asked. I mean,
it's simple --
COURT: If it's not
going to effect the outcome ...
MR VIJAY: Okay, your
Honour --
COURT: Yes, just move
on.
MR VIJAY: Okay, Mr
Crispin, in view of -- maybe I will
start from the
beginning.
You were asked
by Mr Sreeni about your educational
qualification, and
you said you attended a sandwich
course and this and
that.
Could you give
us some details about this course,
about this sandwich
course that you spoke about and in
particular what are
the areas of your study?
A. Sorry, the various
what of my study?
COURT: Could I at this
juncture ask Mr Sreeni, isn't your
case that he's the
wrong expert, in the sense that --
MR SREENIVASAN: Yes,
exactly.
COURT: You're doubting
the fact that his sandwich course or
whatever course does
not qualify him to speak in
a different area?
MR VIJAY: I think he is
an expert building surveyor, your
Honour, on the
question of tiles and debonding of tiles,
occasionally on
water ingress.
COURT: Yes, so he's not
trying to suggest that he is
uneducated.
MR VIJAY: No, I just
want him to -- I believe -- I don't
15:20 suggest --
COURT: No, he's saying
that he is qualified for that
particular purpose.
MR SREENIVASAN: Sorry,
your Honour. I won't object if my
learned friend asks
him point blank, "Were there any
subjects called
quantity surveying?" That's where my
learned friend wants
to go. And I can tell my learned
friend I did basic
accounting in law school as well.
COURT: So, do
accounting students learn insurance law,
shipping law,
banking law? It won't take you very far.
MR VIJAY: Yes, your
Honour, but maybe -- we are making
comparison to legal
studies, maybe theirs might be
a different setup.
I'll just clear it then, if your
Honour will allow.
That is my learned friend's
understanding, but I
believe when I took instructions
from him he said
something else.
COURT: I'm trying to
save time, but if you want to go on
and ask him about
the sandwich course and how long it
took ...
MR SREENIVASAN: You can
ask him point blank whether he did
quantity surveying
as a subject.
MR VIJAY: Yes, your
Honour, I would like him to say the
course he attended
and the manner in which --
COURT: Go ahead.
MR VIJAY: Yes, Mr
Crispin.
15:21 A. Sorry, maybe for
clarification I can just hear your
question again,
please?
Q. Yesterday, in one of
the questions, you were asked about
your educational
course.
A. Yes.
Q. And you said it's
kind of a sandwich course.
A. Yes.
Q. I'm seeking
clarification on that. Can you just give us
a little bit about
how many years the course was, what
did you do for the
first two years, what were the areas
you covered in your
studies, et cetera?
A. Well, in brief it's
a sandwich course or described as
such because it's
divided really into three parts.
There is two years
at university, there is one year
approved
professional training, and then there is
a final year at
university.
My university
was Salford. At that time that was
one of the two
universities where surveying was untaken.
The first two years
prior to the sandwich year out were
a combination of
building surveyors and quantity
surveyors and then
after the sandwich year, for the
final year, there
was a split where the quantity
surveyors and the
building surveyors went to different
classes. There was
a small amount of overlap for
construction
technology but there was an element of
15:23 split as well.
Q. Okay. I think the
$1.20 and $3.50 has been sufficiently
covered. (Pause.)
Can I just
clarify on CPG's handbook at D21.
I believe it is --
we established it as the second
quarter publication,
right?
A. The actual
publication is December 2006.
Q. Could you explain
why it is dated December 2006 but it
covers the second
quarter prices?
A. Okay. Actually, if
you look at this publication in its
entirety, there are
various references to different
quarters in 2006,
from the first quarter to the second
quarter. But I
would think that the practical reason is
that certain data
for certain items is obtained at
certain times, it's
then collated and then it's
published.
Q. Is there anything
else you want to add to your reason
for not accepting
the $3.50 price with regard to the
steel?
A. Maybe I will just
refer to the $3.50 price first, which
is at page E41 in
the CPG document. Perhaps just to
keep it simple,
putting aside issues of preambles,
et cetera, in very,
very simple terms on page 41 under
the heading "Mild
Steel Members" there are two figures.
The first figure is
solid section, $3.50 per kilogram.
15:26 I have seen that
figure many times when I was
undertaking my
assessment. I do not think that that
figure is
appropriate and I referred to the more
detailed figures in
section D, page 29.
The reason for
that is fairly straightforward. If
you are pricing
something, you have to know what you are
pricing, and
obviously to be specific is much better
than being general.
The figure of
$3.50 per kilogram is a general figure
which can be applied
in very, very general terms, and it
can be applied
apparently from anything -- from
a stanchion or
column down to a cleat or a bracket, in
other words
something very, very small.
Now,
specifically for The Pump Room, the issue was
the brew room/cold
room where there are, in the Mason
Works quotation,
specific dimensions given for the
structural steel, so
firstly it makes no sense to use
a generalised figure
of $3.50, which could be applied to
many elements where
there are specific figures,
particularly for
steel columns and beams, so at page
D29, it's quite
clear that dimensions are given, in
effect densities are
given which can correlate very,
very closely with
the figures in the Mason Works
quotation.
The alternate
figure that's been suggested of $3.50
15:28 in my opinion is
really rather meaningless, because
theoretically it's
talking about mild steel members in
general terms.
Mild steel
members could relate to something very
small like, for
example, a steel bookcase, equally it
could refer to a
very large steel structure. There is
no limitation within
this particular definition, so
taking an extreme,
it could be perhaps a metal bookcase
up to an oil rig,
they are both steel structures and
they both conclude
beams, girders, but of different
dimensions.
The issues with
the $3.50 figure is that it includes
labour. Obviously
the labour to construct a bookcase is
very, very different
from that of constructing something
like an oil rig, so
I do not think that these are
comparable figures.
The correct
figures to use are at page D29, and it
does not make sense,
if you have general figures and
specific figures, to
rely on the general figures. The
specific, directly
correlating figures with very, very
clear references as
to steel dimensions should be used.
So that would be
the basis for my reason. That was
the basis of my
calculation. I have referred directly
back to the Mason
Works quotation. You cannot
specifically do that
with the $3.50 per kilogram figure,
15:29 you can with the
figures at page D29. I've referred
back to the figures
and I have undertaken my
calculations,
whether it be $1.50 per kilogram supply
and delivery or
$1.50 supply, delivery and labour.
But based on
what's provided at page D29, it will
allow you to get a
very accurate figure of what the cost
of the steel will be
and depending on what rate you
get -- it's either
going to be, you know, 28,000 or
40,000, around
there, and that will also highlight back
to the specific
items for the brew house and the cold
room and the cost
quoted by Mason Works. And one can
see a direct
comparison in terms of the steel, obviously
not in the price,
because the price variance is
enormous.
Q. With regard to --
it's item 10 I think in your report,
for the $40,000, you
were asked how much you would
factor in for the
M&E works. Do you recollect that part
of the question and
evidence?
A. I recall that, yes.
Q. My question is: does
that item number 10 in your
report -- $40,000 --
factor in M&E works?
A. Within the $40,000,
you mean?
Q. Yes.
A. The figure of
$40,000 purely for the construction of the
brew house and cold
room structure, but obviously that
15:32 comes back to what
I've said earlier regarding the $1.20
figure or $1.50
figure.
The M&E works
are included under other quotations
from Mason Works.
Just referring to page 142, which is
the tabulation,
there is air-conditioning or M&E works
under variation 1,
under variation 2, under variation 3
and under variation
4, at least. So in other words,
there at least four
separate quotations that
specifically deal
with M&E works. So definitely, in my
figure of $40,000,
M&E works are not included.
Q. In these four
quotations or items that relate to M&E
works, do any of
them refer to the M&E related to
item 10, that is the
brew --
MR ONG: Your Honour,
may I remind my learned friend not to
lead again.
MR SREENIVASAN: I take
a different view from my learned
friend Mr Ong --
MR VIJAY: Wait, wait.
There are two people objecting.
I can only listen to
one at a time.
MR SREENIVASAN: No, no,
I'm agreeing.
Subject, your
Honour, to the fact that since my
learned friend is
going into new ground not covered in
cross-examination, I
will be asking for leave to further
cross-examine on
this interesting new ground, where this
witness takes from
quote 10 and says, "I don't include
15:33 it because it's
cover somewhere else", then we are going
to go through the
numbers with him. Not more than two
minutes.
MR VIJAY: First and
foremost, this is not a new question,
these questions
about M&E works in relation to $40,000
in item 10, I
believe was asked -- I don't want to use
the words ad
nauseam, but quite repeatedly before we
broke for lunch. My
memory may not be quite as good as
my learned friend
but it was asked.
COURT: Please proceed.
MR VIJAY: Thank you,
your Honour.
So my question
was: these three or four quotations
where the M&E works
are referred to, do they also cover
the M&E works
connected with the cold room and the brew
house structure,
item 10?
A. Yes, it does.
Particularly in relation to
air-conditioning,
because there is air-conditioning
plant constructed
above the steel structure of the brew
house/cold room.
MR VIJAY: I have no
other questions, your Honour. Thank
you.
COURT: All right.
MR SREENIVASAN: Your
Honour, I am asking for leave just to
ask one question,
and I will state what the question is,
because I have got
an A for accounting. Item 10 has
15:35 a figure of $266,000
as the variation, your Honour.
Next to that we have
a valuation of 40, one normally
expects that if you
have this figure here, another
figure there, one is
talking about apples, and the other
is talking about
apples, so my simple question which
I will ask your
Honour to give me leave to ask is
whether the 40,000
relates or correlates to the work
encompassed in the
266,000? That's what we've all been
doing.
MR VIJAY: A very fair
question.
MR SREENIVASAN: Thank
you.
And if the
answer is no, God help us, this table is
amazing.
A. Sorry, I didn't hear
that bit.
MR SREENIVASAN: No, I
need his Honour's leave first.
COURT: Yes.
Further
cross-examination by MR SREENIVASAN
MR SREENIVASAN: Mr
Crispin, look at page 160, item 10.
A. Yes.
Q. You've got this
whole table, right, "Variation" in the
middle, and then
next to that you have another item,
"Valuation"; am I
right?
A. Yes.
Q. If you look right at
the end, you have a total amount
for variation and
then you have a total amount for
15:36 valuation; am I
right?
A. Yes.
Q. We know -- you don't
know, but the lawyers know that
Mr Vijay's client is
claiming the difference between the
two, ie Mr Ong's
client charges so much in the middle
column, but you are
saying the same amount of work is
only worth so much
on the right-hand column; am I right?
A. Correct, I know that
there's one issue --
Q. But am I right, Mr
Crispin? It's almost 4 o'clock.
Let's try and get a
straight answer.
A. There is a
difference.
Q. So I am wrong?
A. No, you are right.
Q. So would you greet
that the $40,000 must correlate to
the work described,
the $266,000?
A. It relates to some
of the work.
Q. But not all?
A. That's right, yes.
MR SREENIVASAN: Okay.
MR VIJAY: Your Honour,
can I then follow up and just ask --
MR SREENIVASAN: Then I
will finish off.
Some under item
10 but some of the other 266 is
under other items;
am I right?
A. No, I am not saying
that.
Q. So where is the
other?
15:38 A. Let me just find the
quotation.
Q. No, don't look to
the quotation, Mr Crispin. Look at
your own report.
What does your report say?
A. No, I would like to
look at the quotation.
MR VIJAY: Why not?
MR SREENIVASAN: You
can't make it up as you go along. I
mean the witness,
not you.
MR VIJAY: Your Honour,
in all fairness, not every one of us
can remember all the
figures in that report. Let him
refer to his
quotation. We are not here to test his
memory.
MR SREENIVASAN: I will
repeat my question before you go on
a wild goose chase,
Mr Crispin. My question was: does
the 40 correlate to
the 266 items, your answer is, "No,
it doesn't", right?
So now I am asking you, in your
report, where are
the other 266 items caught?
A. Sorry, in my report,
the ...?
Q. The $266,000 worth
of items.
MR VIJAY: He's looking.
MR SREENIVASAN: Where
is it caught in your report, number
11 to 13?
A. The quotation that
I've used $266,000 is at page 99 of
my report.
Q. Yes.
A. That quotation
includes the cold room and brew house.
15:39 Q. Yes.
A. It also includes the
mezzanine floor.
Q. Yes.
A. So the mezzanine
floor wasn't undertaken.
Q. Yeah.
A. So I've taken the
mezzanine floor out.
Q. Okay.
A. Then I have also, as
has been shown previously,
undertaken my
assessment of the steelwork for the cold
room and the brew
house.
Q. I tell you what,
let's make life difficult, turn to
page 98. This is
the quotation, right, starting at page
99; am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. Is item 1 in item 10
in your report, in the $40,000?
A. Yes.
Q. It's in the $40,000?
A. Yes.
Q. Item 1.2, is it in
the $40,000?
A. No.
Q. Is 1.3 in the
$40,000?
A. No.
Q. Good. 2.1,
definitely, am I right?
A. The workscope, yes.
Q. 2.2, definitely, am
I right?
15:40 A. Yes.
Q. 2.3, is it in the
$40,000?
A. For the floor slab,
yes.
Q. It's in the $40,000?
A. Yes.
Q. 2.4, is it in the
$40,000?
A. Yes.
Q. 2.5, is it in the
$40,000?
A. 2.5, yes.
Q. 2.6, is it in the
$40,000?
A. 2.6, the screed,
yes.
Q. 2.7, is it in the
$40,000?
A. 2.7, the tiling,
yes.
Q. 2.8, is it in the
$40,000?
A. Scupper drain cover,
yes.
Q. 2.9, is it in the
$40,000?
A. 2.9, this one, no.
Q. Okay. 2.10, is it
in the $40,000?
A. No.
Q. Turn to the next
page. 2.11, is it in the $40,000?
A. No.
Q. Item 3 we know was
completely omitted; am I right?
A. The mezzanine floor
was taken out, yes.
Q. Okay. So if I take
80,000 tonnes times 1.56?
MR VIJAY: Sorry, your
Honour, I think he asked for one
15:42 question and then
related to that you have gone to a few
that's okay --
MR SREENIVASAN: You can
re-examine.
MR VIJAY: He is
starting his cross all over again.
MR SREENIVASAN: I have
two questions left, that's all, your
Honour.
Using 1.56, your
answer you gave Mr Ong, the 18,000
tonnes, the cost
would be 228,860; am I right?
A. Sorry, 1.56 or --
Q. 1.56 per kg.
Remember you old us including
preliminaries and
everything else?
A. Sorry, 1.56 times?
Q. Times 18, 500.
A. Yes.
Q. What's the total, Mr
Crispin?
A. 28,860.
Q. So you have valid
$12,000 for all the other work?
A. Well, there was one
other floor item, remember, which --
Q. No, we went through
item by item here, remember?
A. No, I'm saying there
is another item in my report which
was the one on page
160, item 9.
Q. The one that we all
can't find?
MR VIJAY: I think from
10 to 9 to 8 to 7, I mean this is --
MR SREENIVASAN: I'll
stop.
MR VIJAY: Your Honour,
he can submit.
|
