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


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


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


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


The blacklisted directors of the Highlander Singapore are : 

William Graham   S2706594E

237 Arcadia Road #05.04 The Arcadia, Singapore 289844



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


George Clark Martin   F5663609U

30A St. Thomas Walk Singapore 238111


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


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

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

Public Record | Trial Transcripts 6


Monday, 10th November 2008

(11.55 am)

MR VIJAY:  May it please your Honour.

        Your Honour, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant

    have settled the matter on terms that parties have

    agreed to keep confidential, your Honour.

        The plaintiff therefore applies for leave to

    withdraw the claim against the 1st defendant, your

    Honour.  (Pause.)

COURT:  Leave granted to the plaintiff to withdraw claim

    against the 1st defendant.

MR VIJAY:  Obliged, your Honour.

MR TAN:  For completeness, your Honour, there's also

    a counterclaim by the 1st defendant against the



COURT:  That's also included?

MR TAN:  That would also be included, and the 1st defendants

    are similarly asking for leave to withdraw the


COURT:  That's the 1st defendant.

MR TAN:  That's the 1st defendant, your Honour.  That has

    been subsumed into the terms that are agreed between the


COURT:  You seek leave to withdraw the counterclaim?

11:57 MR TAN:  That's correct, your Honour.

      COURT:  Leave is granted.

      MR TAN:  Much obliged, your Honour.

      COURT:  What is left is your claim against the

          2nd defendant.

      MR VIJAY:  The 2nd defendant.

      COURT:  As agreed, I will give you all time to work it out.

      MR VIJAY:  Perhaps we could see your Honour in chambers.

      COURT:  All right.

      (11.57 am)

                         (Hearing in chambers)

      (2.19 pm)

      MR ONG:  May it please your Honour.  I think Mr Vijay is in

          conference with his client.

      COURT:  That's all right.

      MR VIJAY:  May it please your Honour.  My apologies.

              Please, your Honour.

      MR ONG:  May I proceed, your Honour.

      COURT:  Yes.

      MR ONG:  May I preface, your Honour, with the

          2nd defendant's position simply being that each and

          every price in the 2nd defendant's quotations to the

          plaintiff have, by the course of dealings, been

          consistently accepted and agreed to by the plaintiffs.

          I think the rest of the opening statement can be taken

14:20     as read.

      COURT:  Yes.

      MR ONG:  With that, your Honour, the 2nd defendants call

          their first witness, Mr William Lee Ka Ming.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, will the other witness be going out?

      MR ONG:  The other witness is my expert witness.  He is here

          for technical matters.

      MR VIJAY:  The cross-examination is on pricing.  It will

          prejudice my cross-examination if Mr Jones sits in, your


                       MR LEE KA MING (affirmed)

                     Examination-in-chief by MR ONG

      MR ONG:  Witness, is your name Lee Ka Ming, and are you also

          known as William Lee?

      A.  Yes.

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

          in that thick bundle before you found at page 164 to

          page 300.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Do you confirm that the contents of this sworn statement

          are true and correct?

      A.  Yes, except there is three area where there's a typo


      Q.  Could you tell us where they are found?

      A.  First one is on paragraph 26.  There's -- there's an

14:23     item, "quotation for interior works for The Pump Room".

          "Interior work" should be replaced as "M&E and

          structural work".

              The next one is on paragraph 45, there is:

              "As a result of the hurry to prepare the brewhouse

          Quotation in time for Christmas", it should be read as

          only "brewhouse" without the word "quotation".  It's "to

          prepare the brewhouse in time for Christmas 2006".

              Finally, the last one is paragraph 48, right at the

          bottom, after the (a), (b), (c), there's "Other than

          those mentioned below", it should be "mentioned above".

          That's all.

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

      COURT:  Cross-examination.

                     Cross-examination by MR VIJAY

      MR VIJAY:  May it please your Honour.

              William, you and your partner or other director Wan,

          you keep in close contact, right, regarding Mason Works


      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Whatever is happening, regardless of whether one is

          dealing with it or you are dealing with it, both of you

          are kept informed of each other's works?

      A.  Generally.  Not every single thing to the detail.  But

          I would say yes, the bigger picture.

14:25 Q.  Let me start off by asking about your connections with

          Ed Poole.  Both of you -- when I say you, I mean both

          Mason Works and Ed Poole -- have worked together in at

          least nine projects; am I right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  This Pump Room project was first given to you all on

          26th July 2006; am I right?  That's the time you were

          asked to demolished the walls, the six walls?

      A.  That was the time, I think we got the demolition

          contract only.

      Q.  The demolition contract.  Later, on 8th September, you

          got the actual contract.

              My question is: prior to even being given that

          demolition work, had Ed Poole spoken to you about the

          Pump Room project?

      A.  No, I'm not in Singapore.

      Q.  Has Ed Poole spoken to Mason Works about The Pump Room


      COURT:  Now that you have discontinued your action against

          Poole and all that, what is the relevance of this?  The

          only issue is whether they have charged you the

          reasonable rates, and they say yes, so how they were

          recommended --

      MR VIJAY:  It is relevant insofar as they were left free to

          charge what they like, your Honour.  That's the preface

14:27     to my questioning.

      COURT:  Your case is they were left free to charge whatever

          they liked?

      MR VIJAY:  Whatever they liked, there was nobody checking on

          their prices as such.

      COURT:  Whether they are left free to charge whatever they

          like, the issue is whether the charges are reasonable or

          not.  Let's focus on that.

      MR VIJAY:  Okay.

      COURT:  Your case is that the charges are not reasonable,


      MR VIJAY:  Not at market price, and they also charged for

          items that were not used, in particular the steel for

          mezzanine floor, your Honour.

      COURT:  Hold it.  Insofar as there was steel that was not

          used, when did you cancel?  Did you cancel them after

          they had ordered?

      MR VIJAY:  Before the works were actually started, your


      COURT:  Before the steel was actually put in place; right?

          What is your case, because they said they had already

          ordered it by the time you cancelled.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, that is their defence.  They say

          they have ordered it, therefore we must --

      COURT:  Is it your case that you cancelled before they

14:28     ordered?

      MR VIJAY:  It is our case that we cancelled in December, the

          work was never done, and those steel was produced, and

          no -- nothing of that sort.

      COURT:  We all know that if you order certain things, and if

          you order certain works to be done and your contractors

          have already placed the order for the raw materials, and

          if you cancel at a late hour, what is your position with

          regard to payment for the raw materials that have

          already been ordered?

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour --

      COURT:  You must make up your mind first.  What is your


      MR VIJAY:  My position is that first, my clients will not

          have to pay for them because even if they have to pay,

          they have a duty to mitigate by either returning the

          steel to us to sell, or they sell the steel --

      COURT:  Isn't it your case that you are willing to return

          the steel to them, Mr Ong?

      MR ONG:  Yes, your Honour.

      MR VIJAY:  That is not pleaded, your Honour.

      MR ONG:  It's not pleaded because they have never pleaded we

          were thereby bound to return the steel to them.

      COURT:  Now we know that they are willing to give you the

          steel, so what is your position?

14:29 MR VIJAY:  Insofar as the mezzanine floor is concerned, they

          are willing to give back the steel.

      COURT:  They are prepared to give you the steel.

      MR VIJAY:  Okay.  Then that is one part of our alternative

          prayers.  If they are conceding that, I accept that.

      COURT:  So you will pay for the steel but you will want the


      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour.

      COURT:  You were talking about mitigation of damage, they

          were talking about giving you the steel.  They have now

          said they will give you the steel.  I am just trying to

          narrow your differences so you can move along.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, the other problem that we face is

          that they have put an exorbitant charge at the rate for

          the --

      COURT:  We'll come to that, but now what are we going to do

          about this steel?  Do you agree now that they can charge

          for all the steel at a reasonable rate?

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, at a reasonable rate, yes, of


      COURT:  Is your client agreeing to pay for the steel for the

          mezzanine floor, but you want the steel?  Is that your

          position and then let's move on.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, if I may just clarify.  There are

          two parts, as your Honour knows.

14:30         The mezzanine floor, we say that the steels were

          never used at all, and if at all they have even

          purchased it at that time, your Honour, they could have

          got rid of it at that time when the market was up.

          There was no loss.  I mean, it's a question of buying

          today, selling tomorrow and making more money rather

          than losing.  That was the market then.

      COURT:  But I thought their case was that it's already been

          cut for you, for your specifications.

      MR VIJAY:  This is basically steel, your Honour, there are

          no --

      COURT:  Well, you can ask.  What do you want to ask him now?

          We have to focus, otherwise we will be running around.

          I'm not a quantity surveyor to look at whether every

          little item is correct or not.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, can I --

      COURT:  Go on.

      MR VIJAY:  On the Ed Poole matter, your Honour, I'll just

          put it to him and carry on to my topic.

      COURT:  Sure.

      MR VIJAY:  Now, I put it to you that Ed Poole has been

          copying e-mails between him and The Pump Room to Mason

          Works with regard to The Pump Room, from as far back

          as May/June 2006.

      A.  This e-mail don't come to me, so I can't comment on

14:32     that.

      Q.  I put it to you that when you were given the drawings to

          do up your quotation, you were already appointed to be

          the contractor by Ed Poole.

      A.  Not necessary.

      Q.  When you quoted the prices to The Pump Room, you quoted

          the prices based on all these drawings that you have

          exhibited in the bundle of documents; am I right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  About eight to nine of them, maybe?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  When these were given to you, you prepared a quotation

          and gave it to The Pump Room to be chosen as

          a contractor; correct?

      A.  Every single quotation goes straight to the Pump Room.

      Q.  Only after that The Pump Room will decide whether you

          are the contractor or not; am I right?  Is that your


      A.  Yes, Pump Room will check, review my quotation and then

          decide whether to appoint us or not.

      Q.  Right.  The Pump Room decided that sometime on

          8th September 2006, when they signed the first quotation

          with you?

      A.  The first one is the interior work, which is on

          12th September.  They signed the quotation and awarded

14:34     the job to us.

      Q.  Right, so prior to that you were not confirmed as

          a contractor?

      A.  Prior to that it's only demolition work.

      Q.  Except the demolition.  Can I refer you to the

          2nd defendant's bundle of documents, please, page 366.

          There is this tender drawing.  Please explain how your

          name, Mason Works, is already on the tender drawing even

          before you can submit your tender.

      COURT:  Here we go again.  Your case against him has nothing

          to do with all these things.  Your case against him is

          that he charged you --

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, the background to how he was

          appointed and his credibility, I'm building it up and

          coming to the price.  My next topic is going straight to

          the pricing.

      COURT:  Can we get down to it, because how he was appointed,

          et cetera.

      MR VIJAY:  This is the way they --

      COURT:  It's not that.  Your case against him is that he did

          not charge you properly.  All these appointments,

          et cetera, you really wanted to get at Poole for all

          this.  Wasn't it your case that Ed Poole appointed him,

          et cetera, and that's why this was relevant there?  But

          insofar as your case against him, it's about

14:36     overcharging you, and you have to prove the

          overcharging, that's all.

      MR VIJAY:  Let's get on with the pricing.  Can I start with

          your first contract, that will be on page 202 of your


      A.  May I know what page is that?

      Q.  Page 202.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  The first contract was $570,562.47; right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Then you reduced it to $474,770.59?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  You did this in order to arrive at a lower sum to

          benefit the plaintiff, The Pump Room?

      A.  I was told by Mr Graham to remove all the provisional

          sum item, to cost it separately so that it will reflect

          the amount more accurately without item that is supposed

          to be provided, but it can be picked up later.

              So, therefore, the revised quotation, I put it under

          item 12, but did not add it inside the summary.

          Therefore, the amount will be lower.

              On top of that, there are about four to five item

          which we discussed together with Ed Poole to replace it

          with a cheaper building material to help to save some

          costs.  That item was eventually returned when we do the

14:38     final account on my VO6.

      COURT:  Mr Vijay, are you going to run through this to show

          that the items are exorbitant in this contract?

      MR VIJAY:  This is in the context of showing that there was

          a deception or misrepresentation, your Honour.

      COURT:  Hold it, you have to make up your mind.  Is this the

          contract where Crispin says it's okay?

      MR VIJAY:  When it was reduced to $474,000, it was okay,

          your Honour.

      COURT:  But it was $474,000 --

      MR VIJAY:  Yes, but before that he represented to my client

          that it's going to be reduced by $118,000.

      COURT:  From how much?

      MR VIJAY:  From $570,000-odd, he told my client that it's

          going to be reduced by $118,000 to the figure of


      COURT:  Yes.

      MR VIJAY:  So my client went away thinking that he had

          a saving of $118,000 from the first version of the

          contract, to the second --

      COURT:  What was the final version, Mr Vijay?

      MR VIJAY:  The final version was $474,000, your Honour.

      COURT:  Your Mr Crispin said it was okay, so why are we

          talking about history if we're dealing with damages?

              In this contract, are you standing by Crispin that

14:39     it's all right?

      MR VIJAY:  As far as the $474,000, since client and Crispin

          said it's all right --

      COURT:  All right, so why are we going on?  This is the

          contract now for --

      MR VIJAY:  Yes, your Honour.  I want to prove their

          misrepresentation in the way they went about deceiving

          my client.  That's all, your Honour.

      COURT:  Okay, at least we know what you want to do.

      MR ONG:  Your Honour, unfortunately I could see none of that

          in the pleaded case.

      COURT:  Is that in your pleaded case, Mr Vijay?

      MR VIJAY:  My pleaded case has misrepresentation, deceit, as

          a consequence of which they were --

      COURT:  You have to provide particulars.  Did you give

          particulars in this area?

      MR ONG:  Not this particular, Mr Vijay.

      MR VIJAY:  We said that they represented that they were

          always charging market prices.

      COURT:  You have to give particulars of what you are talking

          about.  Deceit is a very serious charge, you know.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour --

      COURT:  You have to give particulars so they can answer you.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, this matter is something that they

          raised in their affidavit of evidence, saying that,

14:40     "Hey, we were originally" -- this is their case,

          $570,000.  The plaintiff came and said "Help me to

          reduce it, and we were very magnanimous, we reduced it

          to $474,000".  I am cross-examining on that, your

          Honour.  I don't plead it, they can say it in the

          affidavit and I'm not supposed to cross-examine on what

          they say --

      COURT:  No, I'm not saying you are not supposed to

          cross-examine, I just want to know the purpose.  If you

          just want to show that the contract was wrong --

      MR VIJAY:  I need this context in which they operated before

          I come to the prices proper, your Honour.  It won't take

          very long, your Honour.

      COURT:  All right, all right.

              Yes, Mr Ong.

      MR ONG:  Your Honour, I just want to clarify that nowhere in

          my witnesses' affidavit of evidence-in-chief was it

          stated that they were doing it because they were

          magnanimous, that they were seeking to make all these

          price savings for the plaintiffs.  Nowhere.

      COURT:  Yes, Mr Vijay.

      MR VIJAY:  Let the witness say that.

      MR ONG:  You are making all these accusations now that my

          clients deceived your clients by pretending that they

          had made savings for them when they had not, and none of

14:41     that is in your statement of claim.

      COURT:  He changed four items here, he took out certain

          things there, so you go on that basis and then --

      MR VIJAY:  The witness should be allowed to give the answer,

          not my learned friend, your Honour.

              Your Honour, if I may be allowed to continue with

          this.  It won't take very long.

      COURT:  I know, but we have to be relevant.  We cannot visit

          the whole area, if your client has said that --

      MR ONG:  Your Honour, it's not my place to teach my learned

          friend the law, but if you didn't plead it, you

          certainly can't lead it, nor can you cross-examine on

          it.  That's my position.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, when someone files an affidavit and

          says things to show that they have been magnanimous and

          they --

      MR ONG:  He said none of the things you said.

      MR VIJAY:  Is he giving evidence?

      COURT:  No, refer him to which part of his affidavit, all

          right?  That is easier.

      MR VIJAY:  Okay.  I will refer the witness.  Unless my

          learned friend wants to give evidence.

              Look at paragraph 24, page 171 of your affidavit.

      COURT:  Paragraph 24.

      MR VIJAY:  Page 171.

14:42 COURT:  Page 171, yes.  Can you read paragraph 24?

      MR VIJAY:  "Mr William Graham's first reaction on reading

          the quotation was to refer it to the 3rd Defendant,

          saying something to the effect that he would like the

          3rd Defendant and I to sit down together to somehow

          revise the quotation to a lower figure.  He did not say

          or suggest that any particular item was priced ...

              ... I proceeded to discuss this quotation ... leave

          out certain items, some of which were provisional ... in

          order to arrive at a lower sum.  Thus, I was able to

          present the Plaintiff with a revised quote ..."

              I.e. which he says is a lower sum.  It wasn't

          a lower sum, it was the same thing.  That's all I am

          trying to establish.

      COURT:  Witness, do you understand the thrust of his


      A.  Yes, I understand, your Honour.

      COURT:  That you did not give a lower sum and that --

      A.  It is -- it's a lower sum.  Because Mr Graham feels that

          the amount is too high, so when we put in our deposit,

          of course the amount, about 30 to 40 per cent, naturally

          the amount will be higher.

              So he felt that all this provisional item, which

          subject to adjustment later where the drawings are

          ready, may not be necessary at this stage.  Therefore,

14:44     even though I take it out, I reflected it back under

          item number 12, to show him clearly every item that

          I take out.  There's no hiding at all.  Every item which

          I revise it, which is the -- the provisional sum taken


              On top of it, I also further remind my client that

          there are some major item that also need to be included

          inside this -- this contract to complete the job which

          is under "Important Notes".

              So every items are reflected clearly inside,

          nothing -- no hiding, no taking away, anything, but

          eventually yes, the amount was reduced lower.

      COURT:  All right.  Carry on.

      MR VIJAY:  I won't belabour this for very long.

              Can I just refer you to page 213.  All these items

          on page 213 up to page 214, the total sum of $118,000

          all these items were taken out from the $570,000


      A.  Correct.

      Q.  The net result is there was not a saving of even one

          cent?  As at that date, 10th September 2006, there was

          no saving of even one cent --

      A.  I did not say --

      Q.  -- just a reclassification.

      COURT:  Is that correct?

14:45 A.  It was not shown at that moment, but when the whole

          project completed, when we do wrapping up that time,

          yes, there are saving.  There are a few item that Ed

          mentioned, I had taken note, but at that very moment we

          cannot finalise because it was such a short time we were

          sitting down there, we --

      COURT:  You are not answering his question.

              Can you repeat your question, Mr Vijay?

      MR VIJAY:  Yes, your Honour.

              I say that you just reclassified and there was not

          a single cent saved.

      A.  Yes.  No -- no savings.  It's only lowering the figure.

      Q.  Not a cent was lowered; it was just taken and classified

          at the bottom.

      A.  Yes.  As I want to explain, is that if --

      Q.  No, you can explain in re-examination, but I have to go

          through my main points.

              Maybe just one illustration.  Look at 12.4.

          "Provision sum for construction of U-shape

          hostess/cashier counter".

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  That was taken from the previous item.

      COURT:  Which page?

      MR VIJAY:  Page 213, your Honour.

      COURT:  Which item is that?

14:47 MR VIJAY:  It's for a U-shape hostess/cashier counter.  You

          have said lump sum, $3,500; correct?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  There's only one U-shape hostess/cashier counter that

          you built in The Pump Room, right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  What you have done -- I will only have one

          illustration -- if I may refer you back to January 2007.

      COURT:  Where is that?

      MR VIJAY:  That is on page 237, your Honour.  May I first go

          to page 239, your Honour, item 23.0.  That's the same:

              "Construct U shape hostess/cashier counter in

          cement ..."

              That is the same item for $3,500?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Correct.  Now, can I refer you back to page 237.  Look

          at item 4.0.  You charge labour and material for the

          same item, $700, right?  And item 10.0, supply and

          install the U-shape, another $825.

              So the U-shape, from one item, has become three

          items in January.  That's how you -- correct?

      A.  Okay.  We are talking about the same item.

      Q.  Yes.

      A.  But, subsequently, there are addition things added to it

          like the magazine racks, like the additional serving

14:48     latch, so that we need bracket to secure it.

              So these are added at a later stage where the

          U-shaped counter are already delivered to site, and

          with -- the client find that they need certain areas to

          attach certain thing on it, like even the place where

          they supposed to put the menu and all this, this was

          added later.

      Q.  At the end of the day, it's one item that became three

          items, and the prices is added; right?

      A.  Based on the requirement of the operator to make this

          counter work better.

      MR VIJAY:  One last question only, your Honour, on this.

      COURT:  I am not stopping you at all.

      MR VIJAY:  If you had carried out this work in September, it

          would have been just $3,500; right?

      A.  Not necessary.  I was still put in additional variation

          if it's obviously additional work needed.

      Q.  You gave a lump sum price.  When you say "lump sum",

          it's all-encompassing; right?  $3,500.

      A.  Lump sum with items -- lump sum price with items with


      Q.  I put it to you you never reduced the price.  In fact,

          you increased the price.

      COURT:  Mr Vijay, check with your clients what's happening.

      MR VIJAY:  I already checked, your Honour.

14:50 COURT:  His evidence is that when he quoted $3,500 --

      A.  Yes, your Honour.

      COURT:  -- these additional variations, these variations

          were not there?

      A.  Yes, your Honour.

      COURT:  You might have ordered a desk with three drawers,

          but now if you want some other things on the table, such

          as if you want to drill holes for computers, et cetera,

          then we'll charge you for the additional.

              So his point is that the additional charges are for

          variations to the original thing.

              Am I right?

      A.  Yes, your Honour.

      COURT:  Can you make the case on that basis, please.

      MR VIJAY:  Okay, your Honour.

              Can you show me in these three items, where is the

          variation?  Items 4.0 and 10.0.

      COURT:  At page 237.

      MR VIJAY:  Show me where is the variation compared to the

          lump sum that you quoted earlier.

      COURT:  Witness, the lawyer's point is that it's the same


      MR VIJAY:  Split into three items?

      A.  I can explain that.

      COURT:  You split it into three items so that you can make

14:51     more money, that's his allegation.

      A.  Okay.  That is -- that is untrue.

      COURT:  Can you point out to him what are the variations?

      A.  Okay.  Item 4.0:

              "Labour and material to fabricate U-shape stainless

          steel rod complete with L-shape bracket ..."

              The first drawing, there's one face of the counter

          which is totally flat, and they find that this area,

          they can hang some menu or some magazine, we fabricated

          some additional bar to attach onto this.  This is

          totally an additional thing that was not in the first

          drawing, therefore the variation is for that.  This is

          to explain item 4.0.

              Item 10.0 has nothing to do with the U-shaped

          cashier counter.  This item is -- this item is at the

          bar end there, where there is -- it's very close to the

          dance floor, they were concerned that when people

          dancing may fall into the bar area, therefore the rails

          was added later.  This item, nothing to do with the --

          the U-shape cashier counter at all -- or hostess

          counter.  It's already stated there, the DJ booth.

      COURT:  What is your client saying, Mr Vijay?  He is saying

          item 10.0 has nothing to do with it therefore it's not

          three items.  Is it your client's case that this is part

          of the --

14:52 MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, my client's case is they quoted, for

          that whole work, $3,500, and later on it ended up

          there --

      COURT:  No.  That is my difficulty.  You are not even

          joining issue.  He is saying that item 10.0 has nothing

          to do with the construction of the cashier counter.

              Is that what you're saying?

      A.  Yes.

      COURT:  They are totally different things, so will you check

          with your clients?  If they are the same thing, then you

          are ad idem and you are arguing.  But he is saying you

          are talking about a cupboard in the kitchen, compared to

          the sink.

      MR VIJAY:  Item 10.0 is talking about a U-shape stainless

          steel square hollow section railing between dance top

          and DJ counter.

      A.  The U-shape word may be used on different fittings, but

          they are totally different, because -- this one is

          referring to the DJ area where they were worried that

          when people start dancing they may trip over, so the

          additional U-shape bar is to hold --

      COURT:  Yes.  We have heard that.  There is no need to

          repeat it.

              Do you have that?  He is saying that they are

          totally different, so can you check with your clients?

14:54 MR VIJAY:  I will, your Honour.  Just one question on this,

          your Honour.

              On page 214, your item 12.13:

              "Provision sum for shipping, customs duties, port

          clearance", et cetera, you made provision for $6,500.

          All right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  That same item, which you took out, resurfaced on

          page 238 under item 19.0.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Except that it went up to $9,793.

              My question is: there was no saving; it was just

          that first, you put it as provisional sum, and later you

          billed them subsequently; the net result is, there was

          no saving whatsoever from the $118,000?

      A.  This is a very good example to exhibit provisional sum.

          Provisional sum is not necessary to be saving --

      Q.  I concede that.

      A.  The amount can be --

      Q.  Provisional sum is -- I concede that.  It can go up and

          down, but it never went down, right?  It always goes up.

      A.  Not necessary it will go down.  It's an amount -- like

          for example if I give a provisional sum of $6,500

          earlier on, if the -- if all the material need to take

          10, 20, even 30 shipment to come in, so obviously I am

14:56     entitled to claim for the additional.  The $6,500, as I

          said, provisional sum is a sum that we indicate that you

          may need to use it in the course of the project.  But

          subsequently, we were -- we will have the total figure

          which is the accurate one, which show on page 238, that

          is exactly all the shipments that incur in this project.

          So I'm reflecting the actual amount which I eventually

          billed the client.

      Q.  My only question is: when you represented on

          10th September that you were reducing the price by

          $118,000, that was not true, because the client was

          subsequently billed for the items.

      A.  I removed it, I take it out to put it on a separate


      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, I am going to another area.

      COURT:  Yes.

      MR VIJAY:  Mason Works functions as a main contractor, i.e.

          you take the job and then you subcontract to various

          subcontractors?  Is that what you do?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  In the case of The Pump Room, all the works were

          subcontracted out to subcontractors, and then you mark

          up your price; that's --

      A.  Most of them, but carpentry work, we did it in the

          factory -- in our factory.

14:58 Q.  Carpentry work.  Apart from carpentry work, was there

          anything else?

      A.  Not of I can think of now.

      Q.  When you say "carpentry work", can you show me in your

          quotation what you are referring to, so that I will not

          mix up my next question?

      A.  Page 203.

      Q.  Yes.

      A.  Item 1.5, the hoarding.

      Q.  The hoarding, that's what you call by carpentry?

      A.  No.  You need me to run through the entire contract,

          there are more to come behind.  I'll list every one for


      Q.  Apart from hoarding, what other carpentry work did you

          do?  The reason I'm asking this is because --

      A.  I'll come to that.  I'll come to that.  I need to read

          the notes first, so -- because some cases there's one

          item, but some by the carpenter, some by my

          subcontractor.  I need to -- I need to ... (Pause.)

              Item 2.3.  Item 2.3 consist of two groups of people:

          one group, which is my subcontractor, which put up the

          ceiling; then the second group which is my carpenter who

          nailed the coconut planks on it.

              Item 3.2, this is the -- to clad the -- to clad the

          wall with the coconut planks.  That is my carpentry

15:01     work.

      Q.  2-point?

      A.  3.2.

      Q.  Can I try and save some time.  Would your carpentry work

          exceed $100,000, what did you yourself?

      A.  I cannot answer this question.  I need -- there's too

          long already, I got to add it up.  I can list out the

          item for you and you can --

      COURT:  Mr Vijay, here we go again.  You say that he has got

          subcontractors, all right.

      MR VIJAY:  Yes.

      COURT:  It's perfectly for contractors and subcontractors;

          your point is that he overcharged you, so do you have

          any proof that he overcharged you other than the fact

          that he had subcontractors, because that by itself is

          neither here nor there.  You can have subcontractors and

          you can overcharge, or you can have subcontractors and

          charge a fair mark-up, so that you are not beyond that.

          Or else we are going to see what you have done, what you

          do yourself, et cetera.

              Do you have any --

      MR VIJAY:  I don't actually want the witness to give me

          a detailed account, I just --

      COURT:  Then tell him, so that --

      MR VIJAY:  What percentage of it was done by you yourself?

15:02 A.  I can't give that figure.

      Q.  You can't answer that?

      A.  Because the -- too many things, as I say --

      COURT:  If you can't, you can't.  Let's move on.

      A.  I can't answer that.

      MR VIJAY:  When you entered into a contract with The Pump

          Room, you never told them that you were going to

          subcontract your work; right?

      A.  No.

      Q.  When you billed The Pump Room, you say that you took

          into account the fact that you had a rush job and so on

          and so forth; right?  You took into account other


      A.  Yes.

      Q.  These factors are what, one, that there is rush.  Time

          was one?

      A.  Time constraint, yes.

      Q.  The second one?

      A.  Information like drawings and all these coming in, drips

          and pieces.  A lot of -- some of the oversea item, they

          come in their own different schedule; as a result, we

          can't plan the work accordingly, and also due to the

          fact that the site is in -- Clarke Quay itself is

          functioning, so a lot of work got to be work during --

          so-called off peak hours, to -- to disturb the -- the

15:04     other tenants that is doing business there.

              And also one thing -- one last thing is that some of

          the quotation and all this that we were -- we submitted

          took a while to -- to come back, and there are also

          certain cases, I chase for it.  So all these add into

          the entire frustration of managing this job.

      Q.  First, there's not a single quotation that came back to

          you late.  You are lying, right?  I challenge you to

          prove to me which quotation was approved late.

      A.  The aircon quotation.  Variation number 1, aircon

          quotation.  Because equipment need to be indent in.

          I've been chasing them to confirm this so that I can

          start indenting the material --

      Q.  What delay are we talking about?

      A.  Sorry?

      Q.  How much delay are we talking about?

      A.  Off my head, at least -- at least a week.

      Q.  A week?

      A.  If I -- if I don't send an e-mail to chase, it will take

          even longer.

      Q.  At the end of the day you are talking about the worst

          situation being one week; right?  Most of the --

      A.  No, that is one item, one week.  There are many items as

          well.  Like, for example, even when we are doing the --

          the preparation for the pathway at the next unit, that

15:06     one also, we were chasing them to remove all the

          material away so that I can return the place to

          Clarke Quay.

      Q.  Witness, just tell me what is the delay.  You said one


              Now, many of the quotations were approved on the

          same day; right?

      A.  Some on the same day, some not.

      Q.  Some on the next day or two lays later; right?  We can

          go through it if you want to spend the time.  I can go

          through it.

              First quotation, 8th September.  You got the

          approval on the 10th September.  Was there a delay?

      A.  I --

      Q.  The main one.

      A.  I remember the -- I remember the aircon, there is some

          delay, in approving.  I remember also the electrical

          also there was some delay in approving.

      Q.  No.  You said the maximum that they took one week.

          Apart from that, the rest were all around the same day,

          the next day or two days; am I right?  If not, please

          show me otherwise.  (Pause.)

              Can I go on to my next question?  Are you looking

          for something or can I ask my next question?

      A.  No.  I'm going through the -- the day that the quotation

15:08     was issued and the approval.

      Q.  I put it to you that no quotation was delayed.  You can

          admit or deny and I will move on.  You can explain it in

          your re-examination.

      A.  I deny that.

      Q.  Clarke Quay, at that point of time, everyone was doing

          renovations there; right?

      A.  Not true.

      Q.  Was there any time restriction on you and when you could

          not do work and all that?

      A.  Noisy work and carrying out of debris out of the job

          site, walking past the tenant units, all this got to

          be -- be kept until they have finished operation before

          we can move things out.

      Q.  My question is: were you in any way limited in your

          work, i.e., you can work day and night if you want to --

      A.  Noisy work, drilling work we can't --

      Q.  -- the quotation said night work.

      A.  Yes.  If there's drilling work, all this -- there are

          cases whereby we even have to wait till about 2 am

          before we can start work.  One example is to cut off the

          gas, because the gas is serving Satay Club and other

          unit at the same time also.  So that -- that is all --


      Q.  Those are very minor factors.  Compared to a residential

15:09     area, you were in a much more advantageous position;


      A.  Not true.

      Q.  Next door was Highlander.  They were also doing work;


      A.  Highlander -- Highlander -- I didn't -- Highlander is

          not an issue.  The one that I am concerned is Satay Club

          on the other side.  Satay Club is on -- on the other end

          of the Pump Room.

              Highlander didn't give me any issue at all because

          at that time Highlander -- while we are working -- is

          still not fully operate now.

      Q.  In any construction work or interior work, there will

          always be these problems; right?  It's nothing out of

          the ordinary; correct?

      A.  It depends on the degree of inconvenience only.  Some --

          some it's not so serious, some it's more serious.

          Everyone will have some problem.

      Q.  But you only found out all these things after you were

          given your quotation; right?

      A.  I know there is inconvenience, but you have to actually

          go in to start work, then you will actually experience

          the real -- the real effect to it.

      Q.  Witness, you had already given your quotation to The

          Pump Room; right?  Then only you are saying, "Oh, there

15:10     are delays, there are frustrations" -- all this happened


      A.  Giving the quotation that time, I have take this into

          consideration, but I --

      Q.  Let me go to specifics then.  When you gave the

          quotation to The Pump Room, did you know that they will

          be approving only one week later, according to you?

      A.  When I gave, I don't know.

      Q.  Yes, so how can you factor that in as a reason to

          increase the cost?

      A.  No, I did not increase the cost based on confirming my

          quotation one week later.  That quotation I gave one

          week ago stay.

      Q.  No.  You said that when you quoted your prices, you took

          all these factors into account.

      A.  Not giving quotation late.

      Q.  These are the reasons you gave --

      A.  No, I did not -- I did not say that.  My reason is, the

          inconvenience of working at a place that is operating,

          the delay in some -- some material coming in, and also

          the delay in the information and drawings coming in.

      Q.  Let's take one.  So you quoted higher because of the

          delay in the drawings coming in; is that your evidence?

      A.  No.

      Q.  What does the delay in the drawings have to do with your

15:12     prices?

      A.  I quoted higher based on anticipating knowing that

          I will incur overtime on this work, but end of the day,

          there's actually much more delay than what I expected,

          which I didn't allowed for.

      Q.  Let me take you on that.  When you quoted your pricing,

          you increased the quotation to make provision for

          overtime work; is that what you're saying?

      A.  This is one of it, yes.

      Q.  This is one reason.  In other words, when you gave the

          quotation, you had already put a certain amount of money

          into the quotation for overtime work; am I right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  How many per cent did you mark up for the overtime work?

      A.  It varies from different kind of work.  Certain work,

          I can anticipate that we are doing it in the factory.

          I won't --

      Q.  You would have a figure; right?  Over and above the

          market price, you put a certain figure up.

      A.  Okay.  Not -- not -- that does not apply to every

          quote -- every item, but in the range of three to five.

      Q.  What would you have done if subsequently there was no

          need for additional manpower?  There was no provision to

          return the difference; right?

      A.  Not for this case.

15:13 Q.  No.  You put in labour costs beforehand; right?

      A.  A small percentage for overtime work, yes.

      Q.  For the fact that the place, you say, is inconvenient to

          work, how many per cent did you mark it up?

      A.  In the region of three to five -- I mean, that is for

          overtime.  For overtime work, to rush up the work.

          Inconvenience to work, that one I didn't put in.

      Q.  Delay?

      A.  What sort of delay?

      Q.  You said there were delays.

      A.  Delay in issuing information and drawings, is that what

          you're referring to?

      Q.  Whatever.

      A.  Okay, for issuing of drawings and information, that

          delay I did not factor in any additional costs.

      Q.  At the end of the day, this was no different from any

          ordinary renovation work, was it, of this nature?

      A.  I don't understand when you say no different --

      Q.  Any renovation work, especially if it is a restaurant,

          they are always in a hurry to open; right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Such work is always an urgent job; right?

      A.  Not all.  You want me to explain?

      Q.  Almost all; right?

      A.  Not necessary -- I can explain on this.

15:15 Q.  There is no need.  You can explain in re-examination.

              Let me come to the gas piping.  The gas piping, you

          gave to A's M&E Pte Ltd?

      A.  Correct.  They are -- they are the appointed

          subcontractor by Clarke Quay, to use them.

      Q.  You had no work to do except to appoint them; right?

      A.  No, I have a lot of work to do.  You want me to list the

          work done?

      Q.  A's M&E works did the whole thing, right, A to Z?

      A.  The physical work.

      Q.  Yes?

      A.  The physical work.  I need to get the application from

          Clarke Quay for night work.  I need to go down to all

          the tenants that is affected to say hello to them, let

          them -- see what time they stop the kitchen so that I'm

          able to go in.

      Q.  All this are not in your invoice; right?

      A.  No, this one is -- this is part and parcel as my

          attendance inside to take care of all these.  Therefore

          I have a profit over it.

      Q.  Can I show you what you billed the clients?  To save

          time, can I refer to you Kenneth Hugh Jones' affidavit,

          page 64.

      A.  The 2nd defendant?

      Q.  The thick bundle.

15:17 A.  Page 64.

      Q.  That's your quotation; right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  For alteration and installation of gas piping?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  On page 67 is A's M&E's Pte Ltd quotation, for the same


      A.  Yes.

      Q.  What you have done is that you have just ditto copied

          out A's M&E quotation; correct?  Look at item 1.1 and

          their 1.1, it is the same, right?

              "Supply labour, tools to cap off, dismantle and

          remove ..."

      A.  Yes, correct.

      Q.  Exactly the same, right?  They are doing the work here

          for $1,750; all you did was to give a quotation

          increasing it to $2,300.  Correct?

      A.  That is -- that is my mark-up and my mark-up consists

          of --

      Q.  Your mark-up comes to 33 per cent; correct?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  A's M&E is already charging for the whole thing plus GST

          and everything.  On top of it all, you marked it up 33

          per cent.  Don't you think that's very high?

      A.  Not high at all.

15:19 Q.  For doing nothing, isn't it high?

      A.  Untrue.  I not doing nothing.

      Q.  Item 1.2 is another copy, isn't it, a ditto copy?  All

          you did was to copy out the item from A's M&E into your

          quotation, and then mark it.  The only hard work you did

          was to change the figure to $2,650 from $2,000.

          A mark-up of 32.5 per cent, that's not high?

      A.  Not high, taking into consideration the work that I have

          to do in order to finish this --

      Q.  I put it to you that there was no work for you to do

          except to prepare a back-to-back quotation with the

          marked-up prices.  That's all.

      A.  Untrue.

      Q.  I put it to you that A's M&E are proficient, they are

          reputable and they know how to carry out their work.

          All you did in this case was to duplicate their

          quotation and mark up the price?

      A.  I disagree.

      Q.  Look at items 1.3 and 1.4.  That is another duplicate of

          item 1.3 of A's quotation; correct?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Except that their item is 1.3, yours is broken up into

          items 1.3 and 1.4.  Correct?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Look at the 1.3:

15:20         "Night Works for the above job ... Box-Up ... PE


              For PE submission, they charge $4,000.

              You have put a separate item: preparation of

          drawing, professional engineer endorsement and

          submission also.  Right?

              You all talked about preparation of drawing,

          endorsement, et cetera; they only talk about submission.

          Are they the same thing or are you exaggerating?

      A.  No, because before that we also got to provide them with

          drawings.  I need to get relevant drawings for them,

          I need to go to get the master copy from Clarke Quay,

          give it to them so that they are able to plot their work

          done for submission.

      Q.  Did you put that here?  Did you give a quotation for all

          those works that you are now adding in?

      A.  No.  It's all lumped in together.

      Q.  Now you are saying you have to do all of this.

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  You just took from A's M&E and duplicated it into your

          quotation, that's all.  You didn't say that you had to

          do anything additional.  So here, the total of items 1.3

          and 1.4, when compared to item 1.3, you have a mark up

          of 45 per cent for doing nothing.

      A.  Not doing nothing.

15:22 Q.  Do you agree your mark-up is 45 per cent?

      A.  Yes, but there are a lot of work behind.

      Q.  Of course.  You will say that, but it's not reflected in

          your quotation; right?

      A.  Sometime when we do the quotation, there's a lot of

          things that we cannot write down everything.  But

          ultimately, Pump Room having the gas now.

      Q.  All you have said in your quotation to Pump Room is that

          you have to do these items 1.3 and 1.4 work.  That's all

          you have said; right?  That's all you have said.  You

          have not said that you are doing any additional work.

          Am I right?

      A.  Not true --

      Q.  As far as the quotation is concerned.

      A.  No.  Quotation is concerned, yes, but I'm telling you

          now --

      Q.  No, don't tell me now.  You have already given the

          quotation and collected your money.  What's the point of

          talking now?

              Similarly, item 1.5, you copied wholesale:

              "Supply and install ... solenoid valve".

              You just cut and paste and then you marked it up to

          $3,100.  That's all you did.  Correct?

      A.  Plus a lot of physical work at site.

      Q.  Did you mention here that you did other physical work,

15:23     et cetera?

      A.  It's not mentioned here.

      Q.  No.  Item 1.6, again it's a cut copy; correct?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Of item 2.2 at page 67.  The only hard work you did was

          to increase the amount; correct?

      A.  Not correct.

      Q.  Why is that not correct?

      A.  Because there are more work at site that was done.

      Q.  Does your quotation show that you have done any more

          work than A's M&E?

      A.  It's not shown in the quotation.

      Q.  Yes.  Similarly for item 1.7, that is a duplicate cut

          copy of item 2.3; correct?

              Again, the only thing you have done is to mark up by

          23.3 per cent to $7,650; correct?

      A.  Which item.

      Q.  Item 1.7 of your quotation is a duplicate of item 2.3,

          page 67?  Correct?

      A.  As I said, with some other work as well.

      Q.  It is not mentioned in your quotation; right?

              Even submission and testing by City Gas, amount to

          be paid to be City Gas -- this is like an expense,

          disbursement -- $570.  Even that, you put into your bill

          and marked it up to $750.

15:25 A.  We need to get a --

      Q.  Item 1.8.

      COURT:  Are you asking a question?

      MR VIJAY:  Yes.

      COURT:  Please let him answer.

      MR VIJAY:  Yes.

      COURT:  Do you want to say something about the mark-up?

      A.  No.  This testing, we need to get our project guy to

          standby at site to open up some of the doors for City

          Gas to turn on and test it.  So we have -- we have

          somebody there to do the coordination.

      MR VIJAY:  That testing by City Gas was done and billed by

          A's M&E Pte Ltd; correct?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  They did all the work and billed $570?  Page 67?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  You merely increased that to $750 in your quotation?

      A.  As I said, we need a representative at our site to -- to

          liaise with City Gas as well.

      Q.  Did you bill or did you quote, did you say it anywhere

          that you are billing for your presence there while the

          testing is going on?  Did you?

      A.  I take it as one item included all this to get the

          testing and commissioning over.

      Q.  Witness, the testing and commissioning has been done by

15:27     A's M&E.  You are saying that your contribution was that

          you had to be present there, et cetera.

      A.  Yes.  And also --

      Q.  Did you put that into your quotation or invoice?

      A.  That is part and parcel of the job, and also to sign the

          form once everything is approved, collect the key for

          the -- for the control valve, so that we can hand over

          to the client subsequently.

      Q.  I put it to you that you merely duplicated the item, and

          merely marked up and increased the price for no

          additional work or good reason.

      A.  I disagree.

      Q.  The same thing you did, can I now --

      COURT:  Is your client saying that they did no work at all?

          I keep telling you, I'm not a quantity surveyor trying

          to look at every little item here, $100, $200.

      MR VIJAY:  Yes, your Honour --

      COURT:  I don't know what your case is insofar as the

          $570 is concerned.

      MR VIJAY:  $570 became $750 --

      COURT:  You have asked him and he has said he has somebody

          who has to stand by, et cetera.  Is it your case, then,

          that nobody stood by?

      MR VIJAY:  He never invoiced my client for any of those

          works, your Honour.  My case is that he simply took --

15:28 COURT:  I know that, but as proof of that, you are eliciting

          examples to me.  So when you said, "Look, your Honour,

          $570 became slightly over $700, he just added

          a mark-up".

              So he says to you, "No, I have to do the

          coordinating work, I have to have somebody there, I have

          to hand over the key, I have to sign documents and so

          on, and this is what I did to earn that extra


              Fine, so I've got your view that he just added, and

          now he has said that he has to stand by it.  So is it

          your case that nobody stood by?

      MR VIJAY:  My --

      COURT:  Otherwise, we are left in the air.

      MR VIJAY:  My instructions are that from the documents they

          have produced, it looks like it was carried out by

          A's M&E completely, your Honour, nothing to do with

          them.  All they did was mark it up and just billed my


      COURT:  I know that is your case, but he has explained to

          you, so now do you have any evidence to challenge this


      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, all I can ask him -- and I've asked

          him before -- is: if that's the work you did, then why

          didn't you say so in your quotation and your invoice,

15:29     "I am charging you because I had to do all these works"?

      COURT:  Is that what they do?  When somebody just tells you

          $750, do they have such great detail for one person


      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, if he's billing for that work, then

          he should say that "This is the cost of subcon, plus" --

          or whatever.  He must at least invoice to show what he

          did, not invoice on the basis of what A's M&E did, which

          he didn't do.

      COURT:  Is that the practice?  That's the difference between

          nominated subcontractors who then bill, but if the main

          contractor bills for cupboards, he subcontracts it out,

          then he bills the owner, does he say "The subcontractor

          is how much and how much, and my man stood by, how

          much", or is it the total bill and then you vet it?

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour --

      COURT:  I'm just helping you along, to gather the evidence.

      MR VIJAY:  Yes.

      COURT:  Otherwise there's nothing in the end and both of you

          submit, "Well, he added".  He'll say "No, it's not true,

          he added this bit on", and with a few little pieces here

          and there, how am I to know what was the overcharging

          about?  $100 here, $100 here, can I magnify it to what

          you alleged, 550,000?

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, at the end of the day, the case is

15:31     that -- I'll put it to him.

      COURT:  At the end of the day, he who alleges must prove it,

          that's all.

      MR VIJAY:  Fair enough.

      COURT:  If you have substantive evidence, bring it forth.

          Yes, carry on.

      MR VIJAY:  I put it to you that your mark ups of what

          I showed you just now, amounting to 45 per cent, 33 per

          cent were all far above the market price.

      A.  I disagree.

      Q.  Similarly, with your work on interior fitting out and

          M&E works, which is on page 75 and 76 of Mr Jones'

          quotation.  Right?  Here again, the works were all done

          by Hamptonford according to your affidavit; right?

      A.  Majority of the work.

      Q.  Item 1 is again a duplicate of item number 3, right?

      A.  Yes, he described the work on item number 3, Hamptonford


      Q.  Similarly, item 5.0 is the same as item 7?

      A.  You're referring to item 7, right, of Hamptonford


      Q.  Yes, item 5.0 is item 7, right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  That has been marked up by 48.7 per cent.

      A.  Some of the work for Hamptonford is that we have to

15:35     provide them scaffolding --

      Q.  I am moving on.

              Do you agree that the mark-up is 48 per cent for

          that item 5.0, 48 per cent mark-up?

      A.  I don't have a calculator but I presume you have done

          your calculation -- never mind.  Take it there.

      Q.  One last question on this area.  Item 4.0, is it item 6?

          Page 78?

      A.  Yes, correct.

      Q.  Would you agree that the mark-up is about 43.3 per cent?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  If I may move on to another area.

              You did your first job, 20th July 2006, and you

          demolished six walls; you charged, for that alone,


      A.  Which page you're referring to now?

      Q.  I don't have a page.  Was that done by subcontractors?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  How much did they charge?

      A.  Cannot remember.

      Q.  Just to terminate the M&E services, you charged $12,000.

          Could you explain what you do when you terminate M&E


      A.  There are three sets of distribution board that we got

          to terminate.  There are lights, power points to

15:38     terminate before we can go in and do the demolition.

          There are also power point above the ceiling, for fans,

          for exhaust, and we also need to ensure that all the

          power point going into the toilets, like to the sensors,

          to the hand dryers, everything are -- are removed are

          taken out.

              And in some cases, when we remove the main

          distribution board, we got to make arrangement with

          Clarke Quay to do it in the night so that we can switch

          off the -- from the meter room, so that this work can be

          carried out.

      Q.  Basically, it's a switch-off and switch-on job, isn't


      A.  No.  This -- this way to describe it is too simple

          already.  And all these work are not done at one go,

          they are all in phases as well, because -- not

          forgetting we still had to keep some electricity inside

          the premises for us to work, and some temporary light as


      Q.  Can I move on to the construction of the cold room and

          the brewhouse.

              Your Honour, may I ask for a short break at this


      COURT:  All right.

      (3.39 pm)

15:39                    (A short adjournment)

      (4.03 pm)

      COURT:  Yes.

      MR VIJAY:  Please your Honour.

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

          indicated you would take a short time.

      MR VIJAY:  A short time, your Honour.  I will finish up with

          the steel and then the 8th November --

      COURT:  In terms of hours?

      MR VIJAY:  I should be done in 15, 20 minutes.

      COURT:  Go ahead then.

      MR VIJAY:  Can I refer you to page 274 of your affidavit,

          please, items 2.1 and 2.2.  Can I refer you to those two


      A.  Yes.

      Q.  This is the charges for the amount of steel you are

          charging for the construction of the cold room and the

          brewhouse; right?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  You were charging $79,400 and $60,700, making a total of


      A.  Yes.

      Q.  The amount of the weight of the steel involved is

          18541.1 kg; correct?  That is at page 433 of volume 2 of

          the 2nd defendant's bundle of documents.  Do you have

16:05     that?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Do you agree that that is the amount of steel for these

          two items, 2.1 and 2.2?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  If you divide what you are charging, $140,100, divided

          by 18541.1 kg, that will give you $7.55.  Would you like

          to re-check that?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  You were charging $7.55, and of course you have other

          incidental items on the following page.  Correct?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Right up to item 2.11, making a total of $195,776.60?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Can I now refer you to D2-1, the 2nd defendant's bundle,

          which you submitted as exhibit 1, that is the Cost

          Information Quarterly, an excerpt.

              Before that, can I refer you to page 430 at volume 2

          of the 2nd defendant's bundle of documents.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Structural steel work and metal work.  That is mild

          steel, under 1.1, $3.50, and this at $3.80.  Item A.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  The price here is $3.50 and $3.80; correct?

      A.  Yes.

16:08 Q.  This price, what does it include?  We have to go back to

          the preamble in D2-1.

              Can I refer you to 1.3, descriptions and rates.

      A.  Where is the D2 page?

      Q.  There is no page number.  You have to look under

          section E.

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  Section E, the first page of the preamble.

              This $3.50 includes a lot of things which, if I may

          point out J: establishment charges, overhead charges,

          preliminaries, and even profit.  Right?  So $3.50,

          according to your exhibit, includes all these items.

              You have charged $7.55 for steel, and in addition

          you have, of course, the other items.  Can you explain?

      A.  Item 2.1 and 2.2, these two item, was -- the price was

          given to me by my subcontractor, and I do my mark-up and

          I presented this price inside this quotation.

      Q.  Would you agree with me that your dealings with the

          subcontractor has nothing to do with The Pump Room;


      A.  But the prices that are charged here also come from


      Q.  You must first answer my question.  The Pump Room has

          nothing to do with your subcontractors; in fact, I am

          instructed that they didn't even know you had

16:10     subcontractors.

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Would you agree with me that it is your look-out to

          negotiate the correct price with your subcontractors; it

          has nothing to do with The Pump Room?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Would you then agree with me that your duty or your

          agreement with The Pump Room is to charge market rate?

      A.  Right.

      Q.  Looking at your own exhibit D2-1, and going by the

          suggestions and questions made by your counsel on your

          behalf, it is their case that $3.50 would be the market

          price; right?

      A.  As I said, if you're referring to this book --

      Q.  Yes.  Then it would be $3.50?

      A.  Then, yes.  But as for my case, it's that this price

          come from my subcontractor, and I put in the mark-up.

      Q.  Right.  I've already said that, but that has nothing to

          do with The Pump Room; right?

      A.  Well --

      COURT:  He is trying to tell you that your price from your

          subcontractor may not be a reasonable price.

      A.  I --

      COURT:  Is that not what you are trying to say?

      MR VIJAY:  Yes, certainly.

16:11 COURT:  Well then, tell him.

      A.  I did -- gone through this with the subcontractor, how

          they come to the price.  According to them, the price

          that they received is also from the price that they

          purchased the steel from the supplier in Singapore,

          taking into consideration all the other necessary

          preparation work for the steels, cutting, priming,

          delivering to site, all this.

              And based on that time where they get the price, and

          also taking into consideration the very small quantity

          that was ordered, and that is the price that they get,

          and they had given it to me.

              And I did also -- between us we did negotiated for

          a good price, and also this contractor has been working

          for us for many years, and I have used their price and

          put in the mark-up, and put it for -- into the


      Q.  Would you agree with me that what your subcontractor

          charged you is not an indication of what the market

          price was?  It's obvious, right?  It may not necessarily


      A.  They -- they are charging me the market price.  Basing

          on the -- the type of work that they are doing, the

          size, the quantity of the steel they are buying, and

          also the -- the site constraints and all that.

16:13 Q.  I have put you all on notice, whether you are calling

          the subcontractor to give such evidence.  I had put you

          all on notice.  Are you calling the subcontractor to

          show that they charged you market price and reasonable,

          et cetera?

      A.  According to them --

      Q.  But I have objected to these invoices and I have also

          put on record that I want the subcontractor to come --

      MR ONG:  Your Honour, my learned friend is putting a point

          of law to my witness.

      MR VIJAY:  Fair enough.

      MR ONG:  It is them who alleged that must prove.

      MR VIJAY:  It is he who is alleging that his market price

          was fair from the subcontractor.  I'll leave it for

          submissions, your Honour.  I can't go further than that.

              Let me complete the other half, mezzanine floor,

          item 3.0, page 276 of your affidavit.

              Of course, there is no dispute that these works were

          not done; right?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  You are still invoicing $24,600 and $27,800 for work

          that was not done; correct?

      A.  Minus the $10,670 and $13,340.

      Q.  For the workmanship, okay, I stand corrected.

              When were you told that they are not carrying on

16:15     with this work?

      A.  About -- about one month after I've started the work.

          About one month later.

      Q.  On 4th December or something like that; right?

      A.  Correct.  I started the work early November.

      Q.  What work did you do?

      A.  The entire brewery construction, everything.

      Q.  No, the mezzanine floor, please.

      A.  The mezzanine floor, yes, inclusive the preparation of

          the steel purchasing of the steel.

      Q.  At the work site, there was no work done in relation to

          the mezzanine floor.  You couldn't have.

      A.  Day one, there is no work done at all.  All the work are

          done off-site, and the steel are cut --

      Q.  You are saying that you purchased steel.

      A.  Inclusive, the cold room floor and the brewhouse floor,

          we have to do off site fabrication before they are ready

          to move into the site.

      Q.  No.  On the mezzanine floor --

      A.  Yes?

      Q.  -- there was no work done at all at the Pump Room site;


      A.  Pump Room site, no, but off-site we have the steel, we

          cut them, and all the floor plate has been bent to all

          the various angle, and getting ready to deliver to the

16:16     site.  Because the site is very small, we cannot bring

          all the steel, so we got to finish the floor slab first

          before we put the -- the mezzanine floor on the floor

          slab and slowly move it into the kitchen.  Because at

          that very moment they also doing micropiling and all

          this.  So material are sent to site in stages.

      Q.  Did you inform The Pump Room in any way that "I have

          already purchased the steel for the mezzanine floor"?

      A.  Yes.

      Q.  That's after they cancelled; right?

      A.  Correct.  When they -- when they sent me a message to

          say that they want to cancel this, I told them the

          repercussion of other work related to this which is more

          serious, like the -- the delay of TOP, whether when they

          cancel the floor -- the mezzanine floor at this stage,

          will it affect and all this.  At the same time, also

          I told them that the materials are all ready to come

          into the site.

      Q.  Prior to this, December 2006, although it was on the

          drawing, no one actually gave you any go-ahead with

          these mezzanine works; right?

      A.  I got go-ahead to do the entire job, everything.  RSP

          give me all the drawing for every stages.  My client

          confirmed the entire quotation, so which means that once

          I ordered all the steel, everything, I'll take it as

16:17     a whole already.  Everything is a go.

      Q.  You are saying that your subcontractor ordered the

          steel; is that --

      A.  Correct.  Day one, together with the -- with the cold

          room and the brewhouse steel.

      Q.  On 4th December 2006 you were told by an e-mail to

          cancel the -- that they were not proceeding with the

          mezzanine floor; am I right?

      A.  Yes, I received an e-mail from Shaharin.

      Q.  4th December, you are not disputing the date, are you?

      A.  I think it's early -- early December, but whether is it

          exactly on the 4th, I can't -- I can't remember that.

      Q.  Immediately the next day, you seem to have an invoice

          from your subcontractor for the steel that they've

          already ordered.  The date is 5th December 2006.  Page

          423 is the translation, volume 2 of the 2nd defendant's


      A.  That's right.

      Q.  Immediately the next day, you have the invoice; right?

          I'm just asking you about the date.  Do you confirm that

          it's immediately the next day?

      A.  That's right.

      Q.  Then your subcontractor cancelled item 4 for staircase

          materials, right?  He has cancelled it in this document.

      A.  He cancelled that, it's the installation.

16:20 Q.  Sorry?

      A.  It's for the installation.

      Q.  Item 4 says "Side stairs materials, steel plates without

          installation" was cancelled.  $15,000 was cancelled.

      A.  Without installation, they cancel the -- they cancel the

          thing out, without installation.

      Q.  The $15,000 is also cancelled?

      A.  Correct.  Without installation.

      Q.  The steel supposed to be used for the staircase, he

          cancelled, he didn't believe?

      A.  He cancelled the labour cost for that.

      Q.  The English translation says "Side stairs materials,

          steel plates without installation".  That means they are

          talking only about the steel, they are not talking about

          the installation.  That's the translation I have.  The

          rest is in Chinese.  I don't know.

      A.  Side stair is the item.  Then he put a special remark,

          "without installation", so he giving the cost for

          without installation.  So he cancel out the -- the

          labour cost for that.

      Q.  Did you collect the steel from the subcontractor?

      A.  No.  I do not have place to store the steel, so I left

          it at the subcontractor factory.

      Q.  When you were told that this steel was no longer

          necessary, what steps did you take to dispose of them?

16:22 A.  I cannot do anything to the steel because it belongs to

          the client, because I bill Pump Room for the steel, so

          the steel will have to be kept in the factory, waiting

          for Pump Room to give me instruction.

      Q.  The Pump Room had already given instruction on

          4th December categorically that they are not building

          the mezzanine floor; correct?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Isn't that enough instruction?

      A.  That instruction not to build.

      Q.  Yes?

      A.  But I have already purchased the steel.

      Q.  Yes.

      A.  So the steel will belongs to the Pump Room.

      Q.  Yes.  Did you give it to Pump Room?

      A.  Pump Room did not ask from me, so I store it.

      Q.  You invoiced them --

      A.  Because --

      Q.  You invoiced them, and at the same time you didn't give

          them the steel?

      A.  Okay.  That -- those -- we are talking about at least

          about 10 tons of steel.  It's not a small little item

          where you can give it to Pump Room.  First, they got to

          tell me they want the steel, they have to find a place,

          then I have to hoist them out and deliver to them.

16:23 Q.  Did you ask Pump Room whether they wanted the steel


      A.  I did not ask.

      Q.  Did you show them the steel that you had purchased at

          any one time?

      A.  It's in the factory.

      Q.  Did you offer to show to them what you have purchased?

          Never; right?

      A.  They did not ask to see them.

      Q.  They never asked and you never offered; right?

      A.  It's there for them to see.

      Q.  You have purchased an item on behalf of the customer.

          The least you could show is "Look, I've purchased this,

          what do you want me to do with it?"  That's a minimum

          that would be expected of you; right?

      A.  I show them that I have purchased the steel by billing


      Q.  By billing them, you are showing them that you purchased

          the steel?

      A.  Yes, I show them that it's already purchased, therefore

          I bill them and I only remove the labour cost for

          installation only.

      Q.  Yes, but did you not ask them what they want you to do

          with the steel?

      A.  They did not tell me what they want to do.

16:24 Q.  Do you agree that once they pay for it, or you invoice

          them, the steel belongs to The Pump Room?

      A.  Correct.

      Q.  Why didn't you ask them what to do with the steel?

      A.  I'm just --

      Q.  They are your customers; right?

      A.  I'm waiting for them to see what they want to do to it.

          It's sitting in the factory there.

      Q.  Come on.  William, the price of steel was increasing --

      MR ONG:  Your Honour, this argument has gone on long enough.

              The simple point is it was never pleaded by the

          plaintiff that the 2nd defendants have failed in any

          duty to inform or ask the plaintiff what they wanted to

          do with the discontinued steel.  It's as simple as that.

      MR VIJAY:  This is evidence, your Honour.  I am trying to

          establish --

      MR ONG:  It's evidence if you pleaded it, that it was my

          client's duty and they failed to carry it --

      MR VIJAY:  I don't have to plead evidence.  This is the

          case --

      MR ONG:  If you don't plead it, then you can't lead it, you

          can't cross-examine on it.

      MR VIJAY:  No, you don't plead evidence.

      MR ONG:  Yes, you do have to plead if you want to say that

          my clients have been remiss in not informing your

16:25     clients about this.  It's elementary, Mr Vijay.

      MR VIJAY:  Your Honour, I take a different view.  This is

          evidence, his conduct and what he has done --

      COURT:  I will see both of you in chambers right now.

      (4.25 pm)

                        (Hearing in chambers)

      (6.08 pm)

                        (The hearing concluded)


2013 | Contact