Welcome to thepumproom.com | Public Record - Trial Transcripts
The blacklisted directors of the Pump Room Asia are :
William Graham S2706594E
237 Arcadia Road #05.04 The Arcadia, Singapore 289844
e:mail : email@example.com
The Pump Room at Clark Quay Singapore | Quayside Seafood at Clark Quay Singapore | Peony Jade at Clark Quay Singapore | Peony Jade at Keppel Country Club Singapore | Somerville Pte Ltd Singapore | Pepper Steakhouse & Bistro
The blacklisted former directors of the Pump Room Asia are :
Christopher John Martin Shelley S2733171H
10 Dover Rise #20.02 Heritage View Singapore 138680
e:mail : firstname.lastname@example.org
The Pump Room at Clark Quay Singapore | Mataura Valley Milk Christchurch New Zealand |
George Clark Martin F5663609U
30A St. Thomas Walk Singapore 238111
e:mail : email@example.com
The Pump Room at Clark Quay Singapore | Highlander Bar at Clark Quay Singapore | Tapas Tree Clark Quay Singapore | 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 | Octapas Clark Quay
Public Record | Trial Transcripts 1
Thursday, 30 October 2008
(Hearing in chambers)
MR VIJAY: May it please your Honour, I am Vijay Kumar and
I appear for the plaintiff. Mr Eugene Tan appears for
the 1st defendant, Mr Ong Ying Ping appears for the
2nd defendant and Mr Sreenivasan appears for the
MR ONG: Your Honour, I'm assisted by Ms Susan Tay.
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, we have an addition to the bundles
that we have prepared. We have a bundle of pleadings
which consists of 102 pages, your Honour.
May I proceed?
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, we have prepared an agreed bundle of
documents, four volumes, your Honour. The last page is
The agreement is, as usual, to authenticity and not
to the truth. The plaintiff has also filed a bundle of
affidavits for convenience, your Honour. This is in two
volumes: the first volume contains the affidavit
evidence of William Graham; and the second volume has
all the other affidavits, your Honour.
Then, on the plaintiff's part we have a plaintiff's
10:14 bundle of documents which for convenience I have put it
as purple in colour in the cover, your Honour; that has
I will leave it to my learned friends to tell your
Honour about their documents are that they filed outside
the agreed bundle.
MR TAN: Your Honour, for the 1st defendant, we have one
affidavit of evidence-in-chief, that is the affidavit of
evidence-in-chief of Mr Edward Poole. Apart from that,
your Honour, we also have a bundle of documents, that's
titled 1st defendant's bundle of documents, if I may
just tender a copy to the court, your Honour. It
comprises 83 pages, your Honour. Should I have it
marked perhaps as 1DBOD 1 to 83, your Honour?
MR TAN: There is another thing, your Honour. Ordinarily,
apart from the agreed bundle the other bundles of
documents are not agreed as to authenticity for
contents, but these documents are documents that I have
received from the plaintiff over the past couple of
days, and what I have done is I have extracted them, the
ones that I want to use or intend to rely on, and
I compiled them into this bundle. So I'm wondering, if
perhaps to clarify matters, my learned friend is going
to dispute authenticity for these documents, if not,
10:16 then, I would like to have it agreed as to authenticity,
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, these documents were not in the
possession of my client. We obtained these documents
from RSP, a firm of architects. They gave these
documents to us very late in the day, they told us they
would not be prepared to come to court, and they just
give us a stack of documents. I immediately sent them
to my learned friends, even before I could look at them,
because they were voluminous and they came in very late
and that is the reason why these were sent to my learned
So I'm in this position, your Honour: I'm not going
out of my way to object to authenticity, but I reserve
my rights if anything crops up that is unusual, your
Honour, because they are not really my clients'
documents. It is what we got from RSP, and since we
have a duty to disclose, we did that, your Honour.
MR TAN: It's just that I want to avoid any issues of having
any proof of authenticity and if my learned friend can
confirm that he is not making issue out of it, then
I will just leave it as that, your Honour.
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, my difficulty is that my learned
friend only shortlisted documents -- I have just
received them. Maybe during the lunch break I can have
10:18 a look and revert to your Honour.
COURT: All right.
MR TAN: That's all for the 1st defendant, your Honour, in
terms of documents.
MR ONG: May it please your Honour. For the 2nd defendant,
we have filed before the court the 2nd defendant's
bundle of affidavits of evidence-in-chief. It comprises
three affidavits, the last page is 300. They are the
affidavits of Kenneth Hugh Jones, the defendant's
expert, Mr Wan Yew Fai, and Mr Lee Ka Ming.
May they be admitted, your Honour?
MR ONG: For the documents before your Honour, I have
tendered two volumes of the 2nd defendant's bundle of
documents. The first volume -- does your Honour have
this thicker one -- ends at page 412?
COURT: All right.
MR ONG: It is made up from items 1 to 10, the pleadings
that had gone on between the 2nd defendant and the
plaintiff in this action in the Subordinate Courts in DC
suit 1406 of 2007; items 11 to item 35 are drawings of
the premises that are the subject matter of this action,
which have been discovered upon the request of the
plaintiff and the other parties.
Item 37 to item 59 are also further items discovered
10:21 in the ongoing process of discovery. May they be
admitted and marked, your Honour?
MR ONG: As with Mr Tan, counsel for the 1st defendant, it
might be appropriate juncture to confirm with my learned
friend, counsel for the plaintiff, if it's also agreed
as to authenticity.
COURT: Is it the same reply?
MR VIJAY: No, not at all, your Honour, very different.
Mr Tan's position was entirely different because Mr Tan
was referring to documents that I assisted in giving to
In the case of my learned friend here, of course the
documents from the Subordinate Courts, I have not
touched -- I have no problem with that. The drawings,
I don't know who they are but I believe they must be
drawn by one of them -- no problems with that your
Honour. The only concern I have is all of a sudden I am
confronted with -- I don't know whether invoices or
quotations from subcontractors, the latest is Columbo
something Pte Ltd which I just have sight of the day
before yesterday, as I told your Honour; the two other
subcontractors just appeared and I told them that I need
these people. That's all, your Honour.
COURT: Very well.
10:23 MR ONG: The second bundle, volume 2 of this 2nd defendant's
bundle of documents, it is a slimmer volume before your
MR ONG: Your Honour, this bundle ends at page 441, and the
first ten items, numbers 60 to 69, are cheques drawn in
favour of the 2nd defendant, the first of them being
from the personal accounts of Mr William Graham and
Mrs Pauline Graham of the plaintiff.
The balance, items number 61 to 69, are cheques
drawn on the plaintiff's own bank account, signed by the
Items 70 and 71 are the disputed invoice that
counsel for the plaintiff mentioned. As I stated before
your Honour earlier, this was discovered pursuant to the
plaintiff's discovery despite there being no allegation
ever being made that this particular subcontractor had
not in fact supplied steel to the 2nd defendant for an
omitted item in the course of the works. There has been
no allegation that the 2nd defendant had fraudulently
presumed to charge the plaintiff for this item, when in
fact they never ordered it. If the plaintiff does make
it an issue, it should not be an issue.
Items 72, 73 and 74 are documents discovered after
AEICs had been exchanged, and these are in fact
10:27 correspondence between parties or parties'
Item 75 to item 82 are part of the same items that
were discovered at the same time as my learned friend,
counsel for the 1st defendant -- we received it in one
batch from the plaintiff, with a last-minute notice that
they were not going to put this up as evidence before
So, as with Mr Tan, we are discovering it for the
purposes of this action.
Assuming it's on the same understanding, may it be
admitted and marked, your Honour.
COURT: All right.
MR ONG: That's all, your Honour.
COURT: Thank you.
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, I wish to clarify, of course the
cheques -- all the rest of the documents I don't have
problems with excepting subcontractors, but I want to
clarify that we are not challenging the translation
which only came in now. Of course we are not expecting
them to call a translator, just to clarify.
As to the relevancy of this, I leave that for later
submissions, but if it is not relevant, I wonder why my
learned friend is putting these documents in in the
10:29 MR SREENIVASAN: May it please your Honour. Firstly may
I thank your Honour for the indulgence.
Your Honour, we only have two documents. One is the
affidavit of evidence-in-chief of the third party, which
with your Honour's leave, when the third party gives
evidence on behalf of the 1st defendant, subject to your
Honour's direction, we will adduce that affidavit as
well, rather than putting him on the stand twice.
We have also put forward a 3rd defendant's bundle of
documents which consists of the 3rd defendant's
Your Honour, we are not relying on it but this was
a specific request from the plaintiff. We have acceded
to that request and therefore are making it available,
I will not mark it, your Honour, I will leave it to my
learned friend to deal with it in the course of
cross-examination as he deems best, your Honour.
COURT: All right.
MR SREENIVASAN: The other point is regarding the course of
the examination and cross-examination of witnesses,
I have had a word with both my learned friends, Mr Tan
for the 1st defendant and Mr Ong for the 2nd defendant,
instead of just following the usual order, for each of
the witnesses we would respectfully be asking your
Honour, when necessary, to vary the order purely because
10:30 we have carved out certain areas and certain approaches
and we believe that that would save a fair bit of time,
either obviating or shortening the cross-examination.
I believe my learned friends should have no
objection to that.
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, if it is with a view to shortening
the time, I certainly have no objections, but if they
could just inform me of the sequence then I can
organise my re-examination.
COURT: All right, are we ready?
MR VIJAY: Yes, your Honour.
COURT: Your first witness?
MR VIJAY: May I call --
COURT: Do you want to highlight you opening statement? You
can assume it has been read.
MR VIJAY: I will just assume -- unless your Honour wants me
to, I'm prepared just to put the witness and carry on.
MR PAUL CRISPIN CASIMIR-MROWCINSKI (affirmed)
Examination-in-chief by MR VIJAY
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, this witness's affidavit evidence
appears as the last tag of volume 2 of the bundle of
affidavits of the plaintiff.
Mr Crispin, do you have your affidavit, it is
volume 2, right at the end.
A. Yes, I have it.
10:33 Q. You are Paul Crispin Casimir-Mrowcinski?
Q. Your address is 20 Bideford Road, #13-06 Wellington
Building, Singapore 220021, and you are a chartered
building surveyor; do you confirm?
A. I confirm. I think the postal code is 229921, from
Q. Occupation: chartered building surveyor?
Q. Do you confirm this is your affidavit of
evidence-in-chief that you have filed in this matter,
right up to the end of the bundle.?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. You have included your CV on page 8 onwards?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. And your report is at page 152 onwards, and your
response to Mr Jones' report is on page 176.
That's all, your Honour.
Cross-examination by MR SREENIVASAN
MR SREENIVASAN: May it please you, your Honour, in terms of
the cross-examination of this witness, I will be having
the main conduct of it on behalf of the 1st and
3rd defendant. My learned friend Mr Tan will follow up
if there are any specific points relating to the
1st defendant, your Honour.
10:35 MR VIJAY: I'm not nitpicking. What do you mean by on
behalf -- I suppose the cross-examination is on behalf
of your clients.
MR SREENIVASAN: I think the cross-examination is -- I can
do it, Mr Eugene Tan can do it, then I can repeat it; or
Mr Eugene Tan and I, as two members of the Bar, can be
sensible and conflate our areas.
COURT: All right, please proceed.
MR SREENIVASAN: Mr Crispin, you were in the University of
Salford from 1981 to 1985; am I right?
A. You are referring to my CV? Yes.
Q. From 1983 to 1984 you were an assistant building
surveyor for the NatWest Bank; am I right?
Q. So you were part-time student in the university?
A. Not part-time, it was a sandwich course.
Q. It was a what?
A. A sandwich course.
Q. I have looked at your CV, and if you can turn to page 10
of your affidavit, you have listed your duties under CC
Building Surveyors; am I right?
Q. Now CC stands -- the initials arise from your name,
Crispin Casimir; am I right?
A. Or Crispin Casimir.
10:37 Q. Your duties, item 1, project management in relation to
rectification works, this would be things like where --
for example, work that you have done, tiles falling off
the facade of the building; am I right?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Or like what you did for Island View, where you were
supposed to supervise the works relating to water
ingress; am I right?
A. I can't remember whether I was supervising; I was
definitely project managing.
Q. You didn't complete that project, did you, you had
a dispute with the MCSD?
A. There was a dispute with the MC which also involved the
contractor and the managing agent.
Q. Now, you do property inspections and associated remedial
repair work, am I right, item 2?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. You inspect buildings in relation to building defects
and you report and you prepare reports; am I right?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. You do building audits -- what is a building audit?
A. A building audit is an inspection of a building where
there may not necessarily be a problem but the client
wishes to know the condition of the building for various
10:39 Q. So it relates to the condition of the building; am I
A. Typically it relates to the condition and maintenance
liabilities of a building.
Q. Then you do pre- and post-condition schedule inspection
and report preparation. This again relates to the
condition of the building; am I right?
A. This will relate to the condition of structures, whether
it's building, a pathway, a roadway, et cetera.
Q. But when you talk about condition of structure, you
can't comment on the safety of the structure in terms of
the civil engineering aspect; am I right?
A. Item 6 pre- and post-condition schedule inspections are
referring to recording the exiting condition typically
in relation to adjoining construction works.
Q. So you can't comment on structural integrity; am
A. It depends what you mean by --
Q. Can you comment on structural integrity?
A. As I was about to say, it depends what you mean by
structural integrity. Obviously if I see a large crack
in a building I will highlight it as an area of concern.
Q. And whether that crack would affect structural
integrity, you need a qualified civil engineer to come
and tell us; am I right?
10:40 A. Well, depending on the severity of the apparent defects
then a professional engineer may be involved.
Q. A prudent and sensible building surveyor would call in
a PE, if there is an issue of structural integrity; am
A. Yes, depending on what is actually found on site.
Q. If you have any doubts as to structural integrity, you
would call in a PE; am I right?
A. If I had a doubt about a structural matter then I would
call in a PE, yes.
Q. You are a building surveyor, that's different from
a quantity surveyor; am I right?
A. In simple terms a building surveyor and a quantity
surveyor come from the same family or professional
institution of surveyors. A building surveyor tends to
deal more with existing buildings; a quantity surveyor
often deals with new construction, particularly
obviously in terms of quantities but --
Q. Is it the same -- building surveyor and quantity
A. It's not exactly the same, no.
Q. Is it similar?
A. Yes, it's similar.
Q. Okay. Now let's look at the job of a quantity surveyor.
A quantity surveyor would value the amount of work --
10:42 A. You are not referring me to any documents?
Q. I'm not. Are you comfortable with quantity surveying?
A. It depends what you mean by "comfortable".
Q. Do you think you are an expert on quantity surveying?
A. I think I am quite able to assess --
Q. Are an expert on quantity surveying?
A. I think I am an expert in quantity surveying --
Q. Okay, but --
A. -- and I have dealt -- let me finish. I have dealt with
Q. No, hang on. I have bought petrol, that doesn't make me
a petrol engineer. Are you an expert on quantity
Q. Okay. Can you tell us what are your professional
qualifications in quantity surveying?
A. No, my professional qualification is building surveying.
Q. What you are your professional qualifications in
A. My professional qualification is not in quantity
surveying but I don't think that that means that
I cannot undertake quantity surveying.
Q. You see, Mr Crispin, we need to get to the nub of this
because you are being put forward as expert in valuation
of certain works, and we are going to submit that you
10:43 are not qualified. Do you have any qualifications in
A. Well, building surveyor is expected --
COURT: Can you please answer the question, do you have
A. I don't have any qualification as a chartered quantity
surveyor but --
COURT: You do or you don't?
A. I don't.
COURT: Thank you.
COURT: Please stop there.
MR SREENIVASAN: Let's look at your professional
relationships. Look at page 9 of your affidavit. You
are an associate member of the Royal Institution of
Chartered Surveyors; am I right?
A. Originally I was an associate member, that was in 1987
and then I became a fellow in 1993.
Q. Okay. Is the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
divided into different sections? Let me cut to the
chase -- is there a section for quantity surveyors and
is there a section for building surveyors?
Q. And which section do you belong to?
A. Building surveying or building --
10:45 Q. So while they are in the same family, within the family
there is a clear division between the two branches; am
A. There is a division, yes.
Q. What is your status as far as the quantity surveying
section is concerned?
A. I am not in the quantity surveying section, I am in the
building surveying section.
Q. Not even as an associate, as an adjunct?
A. No, normally you will be in one section, not more than
Q. Because you would belong to the section where your
expertise is; am I right?
A. Well, it may be the case, yes.
Q. But if I have a building surveyor who also has quantity
surveying qualifications, he can join both sections; am
A. That one I don't know, I have not come across that.
Q. You are an elected member of the Tile Association of
Singapore; am I right?
A. In 1993, yes.
Q. You did a lot of work -- in fact one of your most
notable performances as an expert relates to Eastern
Lagoon; am I right?
A. I don't know about "most notable", but I was involved in
10:46 Eastern Lagoon.
Q. And what area did your evidence cover?
A. My evidence covered really three parts: the first was
the inspection of the tile debonding, the second was an
assessment as to the reason for the tile debonding, and
the third was dealing with the rectification of the
Q. When you came up with the rectification, there had to be
a quantum for the rectification cost; am I right?
Q. How was that quantum reached in Eastern Lagoon?
A. It was reached by me preparing a technical and
contractual specification and then putting it out to
Q. And then the rectification cost was what the tender bids
were; am I right?
A. Yes, and then the work proceeded.
Q. You didn't value the cost of the rectification works
using your skills as a building surveyor; am I right?
A. No, you are not right.
Q. Other than calling for tender, did you exercise any
quantity surveying skills?
A. Yes, because the MC asked me to provide my own cost
assessment and when the tenders were returned, I had to
analyse the tenders and give my recommendations.
10:48 Q. Did you work with a QS?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you work with an architect?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Let's look at your other cases that you have done which
you have set out in your CV. Page 26 -- did any of
these items require you to give a value to the work done
by a contractor? You've got a list at the bottom of
page 26 and moving on to page 27.
Q. Did any of these works require you to value the works
done by a contractor?
A. Some of these projects required me to value the works,
either in respect of building defects or in terms of
work undertaken by a contractor.
Q. Which one?
A. I will go through them one by one, shall I?
Q. Just tell us which ones required you to value the work
done by a contractor.
A. By a contractor, Bullion Park, Casa Pasir Ris, Dover
Park View, Eastern Lagoon II.
Q. Over the page?
A. Gold Coast, Hume Park I Nassim Jade, Palm Spring, and
West Bay. From memory, those were the ones.
Q. In assessing the work done by a contractor, you need to
10:50 have an idea of the costings that should be used; am
A. Well, in some of these cases, the contractor is
providing a costing and then I'm assessing his costing.
Q. And when you assess that costing, you need to compare it
with some other costings; am I right?
A. Well, sometimes it's actually a combination, sometimes
of comparing with other costings and also based on one's
own knowledge and experience.
Q. Okay, that's good.
So what was the cost of steel for structural members
that were used in the pump house?
A. Now we are going back to the pump house?
Q. Sorry, the Pump Room.
A. The Pump Room, the cost of steel in which part?
Q. Structural steel.
A. But the Pump Room, there was the sort of cold room/brew
house or brew room and then the mezzanine on top. You
are referring to all?
Q. I am referring to structural steel members. Do you know
what is a structural steel member, Mr Crispin?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What is the cost for structural steel members?
A. In my opinion, the cost of structural steel was $1.20
per kilogram for this structural steel.
10:52 Q. Cost of fabrication?
A. Cost of fabrication, my assessment was I think
approximately $9,000, fabrication on the site.
Q. Interestingly enough, your report does not refer to any
costing used by you; am I right?
A. My report gave the figure, not the breakdown.
Q. Okay. Mr Crispin, as an expert, do you agree that you
should have a methodology in approaching an issue, any
question that you are asked to answer?
A. That I should have a methodology?
Q. Yes, there's fixed methodology to do it.
A. Sorry, in terms of valuation, do you mean?
Q. That's right.
A. Well, I mean, there are various methods of valuation but
there are methodologies, definitely.
Q. Would you also agree that doing work on an existing
structure would be more costly than building a new
A. Well, it depends on the sort of works that you are
Q. And for the Pump Room, that sort of work?
A. The Pump Room, you are still talking about the steel
A. The steel structure is really fabricated off site and
10:53 then bolted together on site.
Q. Would it be more difficult than a new structure?
A. No, I don't think so.
Q. Let's take something else, let's take HVAC. Do you know
what is HVAC, have you come across the term?
A. It depends what you are actually referring to.
Q. Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning, have you come
across the term?
Q. Do you agree that it's more costly to put in HVAC
services in an existing building than in a new building?
A. No, not necessarily.
Q. Okay. Generally?
A. Generally, no, not necessarily either.
Q. This word "not necessarily", sorry, it's a fudge word,
Mr Crispin. Is it generally more expensive for the same
or less expensive to put HVAC services in an existing
structure as opposed to a new building?
A. Firstly it's not a fudge word. You are using the word
"generally" so I have to give a fairly general response,
but I don't think there is any difference in terms of
Q. So it's the same?
Q. Let's take wiring, electrical wiring, would it be more
10:54 expensive to put in electrical wiring in an existing
structure than in a new structure?
A. I think it would probably be cheaper in an existing
Q. Let's assume you are putting in concealed wiring, you
have to hack; am I right?
A. Not necessarily, if there are conduits.
Q. So if there are existing conduits it would be cheaper?
Q. If the wiring is going to new locations it would be more
A. Well, if it's going to new locations it really depends
whether you need more or less wire so you can't
generalise and say it would be more expensive.
Q. Hang on. Whether it's old or new you have to use the
same amount of wire from point A to point B; am I right?
A. No, you would have to be more specific because it
depends if you mean replacing like for like or
a completely new layout in perhaps different locations.
Q. So for this Pump Room, how much wiring was used in terms
of length of wire?
A. Offhand I can't recall.
Q. On hand, check your notes.
A. I don't have my notes. I only have the contractual --
Q. Check whatever you want.
10:56 A. Then you have to give me a few minutes to go through.
Perhaps I need a piece of paper to write it down.
Q. Please tell us which documents you are referring to as
we go along. Maybe I will just move on a moment, before
we touch on this, Mr Crispin, you did do a valuation in
this case, did you?
A. I did my own assessment, yes.
Q. No, did you do a valuation of the work done?
A. It's a valuation, yes.
Q. And you must have done computations to reach this
valuation; am I right?
A. I have either done computations on my own assessment.
Q. Sorry, what do you mean by "assessment"?
A. Well, if looking at a particular item I think it's too
high or too low or unnecessary, then I have assessed it
on that basis.
Q. Sorry, I am really lost at the moment. How do you
decide what is necessary or unnecessary?
A. For example, if I think that there is overlapping of
Q. Sorry, I am lost again. There is X amount of wire from
point A to point B, right?
A. Now I am talking in general -- I am assuming your
talking in general.
Q. Give me some examples of overlapping items.
10:57 A. Okay, in my opinion there was overlapping of the
insurance for the project.
Q. Okay. So you are talking about overlapping
A. Overlapping of the insurance which is referred to in the
preliminaries but then --
Q. Besides insurance?
A. Some items I think should have been taken account of
also within the preliminaries and then not charged as
Q. Such as?
A. Temporary protection.
Q. Okay, so we've got two overlapping items. What else?
A. If you want me to go through in detail, then I think
I need some time to go through it in detail.
Q. These are factors you considered in putting up your
report; am I right?
Q. These are things you thought through before you came out
with the number; am I right?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Where you have done computations, you have only done
those computations; am I right?
Q. As a good professional, you keep notes of your
10:58 computations; am I right?
Q. And those notes are not exhibited your report; am I
A. My notes are not exhibited, that's right, and --
Q. Have you given those notes to the lawyers for the
plaintiff to discover?
A. No, I had not actually finished answering the question.
What I was going to say was my notes are not exhibited.
Typically I wouldn't exhibit my own notes in a report.
Q. Do you have your notes with you?
A. I have my notes in my office.
Q. Mr Crispin, you have given evidence in court before, am
I right, many times?
Q. And you do know that when you come to court, you have to
support the basis of your valuation; am I right?
A. Correct, yes.
Q. So, if you have a figure, you should be able to tell us
how that figure was reached; am I right?
A. From my notes, yes.
Q. Which you didn't bring with you?
A. No, they are in my office, as I said.
Q. So you can't tell us how much wiring was used in this
project; am I right?
10:59 A. Well, not instantly, no.
Q. Can you tell us how much structural steel was used in
A. Structural steel in terms of weight, do you mean?
Q. Weight, length and type of members.
A. The length and type of members is within the Mason Works
quotations, the weight in total is approximately 28
Q. Let me ask you, when I use a steel member, I need to
connect it; am I right?
A. One member to another, yes.
Q. And there are joins that are put in; am I right? You
connect it, you weld it on to the connector, you weld
another piece on to the connector and then the two
pieces will form an angle or they would be continuing
depending on the length of the pieces and the drawing;
am I right?
A. In simple terms, yes.
Q. So, you should know how many connectors were used in
this job so you can assess the cost of works; am
A. You mean the cost of fabrication on site --
Q. For the cost of the connectors. The fabrication on the
site is the welding; am I right?
A. No, no, on site it would generally be bolted.
11:00 Q. Okay, so you would know how many connectors were used,
A. I know, yes.
Q. Your notes would have it?
Q. So if you go back to your notes, you would be able to
come back and tell us how many endplates and how many
connectors; am I right?
Q. For the HVAC, for the air-conditioning, you should also
be able to tell us what is the total length of the
ducting; am I right?
A. Approximately, yes, or what it should be.
Q. And when you do a valuation of the ducting, you should
have measured the total length of the ducting; am
A. I have made an assessment of what I think the length of
the ducting should be, yes.
Q. Hand on. Length is assessed by measurement, am I right?
A. The --
Q. Or do you just stand back and put your thumb up in the
A. No, I wouldn't do that, but what I am saying is not at
all times the ducting is visible so one has to make an
11:01 Q. Did you measure any of the ducting?
A. Where it's visible, yes.
Q. So that too would have been written down in your notes?
Q. So you have that in your office?
Q. What percentage of the ducting did you measure?
A. What percentage? Maybe 25 per cent.
Q. And the other 75 per cent, how did you assess it?
A. By the location of the vents.
Q. And you have a drawing showing all the vents in your
assessment of the notes; am I right?
A. I was making my assessment on site and I would expect
that there are drawings as well.
Q. So you didn't see any drawings?
A. I can't remember whether I have seen drawings
specifically related to ducts.
Q. Why don't we look at your report where you tell us what
your reference material is. Can you turn to page 151 of
Q. Turn to page 154 where you say:
"In due course as-built drawings should have been
11:03 Q. So you never saw them; am I right?
A. I didn't see drawings that were as-built.
Q. Yes, okay. Part of the works were hidden; am I right?
Q. For ducting you saw 25 per cent; am I right?
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. For wiring?
A. Well, the majority of the cabling is concealed.
Q. So you didn't see the majority of the cabling?
Q. What was the power rating for the distribution board?
A. The main distribution board was 600 amps.
Q. Where did you get the costing for that from?
A. The costing -- you mean of the cost of the board?
A. That's my assessment.
Q. Did you refer to any materials?
A. Well, it's more an object, so I didn't refer to any
Q. So tell me, what the cost of a 600 amp DB?
A. I got my costing in my own assessment.
Q. The assessment came from your head; am I right?
A. As I said earlier, it came from my knowledge and
Q. Fine. You have you brought that knowledge and
11:04 experience with you to court?
Q. What's the cost of the 600 amp DB?
A. Well, I have to work it out and then see. Do you want
me to do it now?
A. Let me refer back. (Pause.)
Q. If you are referring to any documents, please tell us
what they are.
A. Let me find it first. My assessment, from memory,
I think was about $8,000.
Q. How many DBs were there, main and sub-DBs?
A. Well, the main, there was one; sub-distribution boards,
there were a few because they relate to different items,
Q. So how many?
A. From memory, maybe it was about six.
Q. How much each?
A. They are different for different -- a different price
for different installations.
Q. Ranging from?
A. From memory, about -- I think maybe roughly $2,000 to
$5,000, but that is from memory.
Q. For air-con ducting, what's the costing per metre?
A. Offhand, I can't recall.
11:07 Q. What is the costing you used in your valuation?
A. I would have to check back.
Q. Where did you obtain that costing from?
A. That one was my own assessment.
Q. Mr Crispin, when you say it is your own assessment of
costing, do you agree that costing is affected by a few
factors -- and I give you the factors one by one: 1,
cost the material to fabricate; am I right?
A. That would be a factor.
Q. 2, cost of manpower to fabricate and install; am I
Q. 3, the difficulty of installation, ie if you have to put
it in an existing building and route it round existing
walls and structures; am I right?
A. That would be a factor.
Q. 4, the cross-sectional area of the duct; am I right?
Q. So let's just go to 4. How would you know the
cross-sectional area of a hidden duct which you didn't
A. Because the ends of the duct I could see -- I couldn't
see where the duct was running but I could see the ends
Q. Could you see whether the duct had to twist and turn in
11:08 the hidden portions?
A. Well, the ducts are reasonably flexible anyway, they
shouldn't really be twisting and turning.
Q. We are talking about air-conditioning ducts, you know?
Q. You are saying they are flexible ducts; is that your
evidence, Mr Crispin, that air-conditioning ducts are
A. Well, my evidence is that there are various types of
ducts, some were flexible, some were rigid.
Q. What about the ones used here?
A. There was a combination.
Q. So let's deal with the flexible ducts in these premises.
I have no idea whether they were or were not flexible,
but I am sure Mr Ong will take instructions and deal
with it. Where were the flexible ducts?
A. The flexible ducts were above the false ceiling.
Q. How wide were the flexible ducts?
A. In diameter, roughly 150 mm, maybe 200.
Q. What material?
A. Well, they were a foil-finished material.
Q. No, that is a finishing, what was the material of the
A. Generally the material is rather like flexible foil as
well, it's like a flexible tube.
11:10 Q. And what's the cost per metre for such a foil?
A. That one I would have to check.
Q. So what's the percentage combination of flexible and
A. For The Pump Room in general?
A. I think roughly 50/50.
Q. How did you reach this conclusion that it was 50/50?
A. By the location of the vents.
Q. Did you open up the false ceiling?
A. I looked at some areas.
Q. Did you open up the false ceiling?
A. In certain places there are gaps where you can see.
Q. Did you open up the false ceiling?
COURT: Can you answer "yes" or "no" and then explain?
A. The answer no, because there are gaps.
MR SREENIVASAN: Mr Crispin, I'm suggesting to you that you
are not here as an independent expert because your
answers have not been forthright; do you agree?
A. No, I disagree.
Q. I'm also suggesting to you that most independent experts
give a clear "yes" or "no" answer and then give a proper
explanation; do you agree?
A. Well, that one, I don't really listen to other experts.
Q. That's quite apparent, Mr Crispin.
11:11 Let's go back to your report and look at your scope
of works for which you were engaged. Turn to page 152
of your report.
Q. "To undertake a visual survey of the completed works",
can you see that?
Q. What is a visual survey?
A. A visual survey means a visual inspection of the works.
Q. I have worked with several quantity surveyors and, as
the name suggests, they are quantity and not qualitative
surveyors, they normally insist on as-built drawings to
measure the actual work done; do you agree that's what
quantity surveyors do?
A. Well, quantity surveyors can look at as-built drawings,
they can also look at the works as on site.
Q. Do you agreed that quantity surveyors ask for as-built
A. No, not necessarily, because it depends when in the
projects they are involved.
Q. Yes, if it is a new build, they can actually measure
what is going in; am I right?
Q. But if they are coming in after the works are completed,
they would ask for as-built drawings; am I right?
11:12 A. They may but they may still measure the works physically
Q. So they would either ask for as-built drawings or
measure the works physically at the site; am I right?
Q. Which is why item 2 of your scope uses the words "to
conduct an assessment of the claimed variation works",
while a quantity surveyor would say "to conduct
a valuation of the claimed variation works"; am I right?
A. Well, he may do, I've not seen many quantity surveyors'
Q. But there is a difference between an assessment and
a valuation; am I right?
A. There is some difference, yes, I am if the sure whether
Q. An assessment is where you look at 25 per cent of
ducting, not sure what's the mix of rigid and flexible
ducting, and come up with a number, while a valuation is
where you measure the actual ducting, use an independent
cost reference and calculate the value; do you agree?
A. Well a quantity surveyor may use an independent cost
reference but not necessarily.
Q. So, Mr Crispin, according to you, you can look at a
distribution board and off the top of your head assign
a value to it; am I right?
11:14 A. I didn't quite say that, I know the capacity --
Q. You didn't quite say that. Now I'm suggesting to you
that what you did was look at a DB and give a value off
the top of your head; am I right?
A. As I said, I knew the capacity of the board.
Q. And then, did you have any reference to any materials
before you gave your assessment?
A. Okay, for that item, no.
Q. For air-conditioning ducting, no; am I right?
A. The ducting, as I said, I looked at the extent of the
Q. Did you refer to any independent materials?
Q. For cabling?
A. Cabling, I have to check.
Q. Price of steel?
A. Price of steel, yes.
Q. What did you refer to?
A. Price of steel, I looked at the CPG quarterly cost
Q. You see, this is very interesting because the
plaintiff's solicitors did not disclose the CPG costing
at all until after proceedings commenced, so are you
saying you had referred to this before proceedings had
commenced at the time you put up your report?
11:15 A. Yes.
Q. And what is the CPG costing for steel?
A. It's $1.20 per kilogram.
Q. Can you tell me which edition you got that from?
A. December 2006.
Q. You see, I have a problem, because Mr Ong has shown me
the December 2006 CPG schedule of rates where it says
mild steel members -- they have various numbers but it
between 3.50 and 3.80 per kg.
A. Maybe you want to refer me to that page, please.
MR SREENIVASAN: Your Honour, if your Honour can look at the
2nd defendant's bundle of documents, volume 2, page 430.
Can you see that?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. Okay. A bit different from $1.20, isn't it?
A. It is, yes.
Q. So I can give you the full item, the full CPG bundle or
cost information quarterly, in case Mr Ong has been
nasty and dishonest and only put in one page.
Look at that.
A. The quarterly --
Q. This is the December 2006, the one you referred to, the
one you got 1.20 per kg for?
A. Correct, yes.
Q. Please tell us where you got it from.
11:18 A. Okay, I was referring to page -- the photocopy is not
very clear, let me refer to your document.
Q. Page number?
A. Let me just find it because I can't see the page number
on my own copy.
MR SREENIVASAN: I hope my learned friend will put in
a supplementary list of whatever the witness is
Maybe, Mr Crispin, you can show me your photocopy
and Mr Ong will assist us by telling us which page it
A. Okay. I'm referring to the plaintiff's bundle of
Q. Plaintiff's bundle, yes.
A. Page 26, I can't see the photocopied page number.
Q. Let me ask you, Mr Crispin, when did you first actually
see this document?
A. When I was doing my assessments.
Q. And you gave this to Mr Vijay?
A. No, not at that time.
Q. Where do you get your 1.20 per kg?
A. If you can just tell me the page number.
Q. It's page 26 of what you have given -- no.
A. I have given you page 26 in the plaintiff's bundle of
11:21 Q. Which is what I'm looking at. I don't see 1.20 per kg.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Tell me where it is.
A. Firstly, you have referred me to --
Q. No, page 26, plaintiff's bundle, where is the $1.20 per
A. The $1.20 per kilogram is actually referred to in metric
tonnes. I'm referring to page 26, if you look at the
first section where it is subheading "Mild steel
I-beams" and it gives you various dimensions. For the
size of the structural members, which is generally under
items 3 and 4, reading across to the price column, it's
actually in dollars here, it says $1,200, that's per
metric tonne; in other words it's $1.20 per kilogram.
Q. My dear Mr Crispin, please read this very carefully. It
says 203 mm times 203 mm beam, which has a density of
52.09 kilogram per metre, costs $1,200 per piece.
A. No, it's not. It's per tonne.
Q. That's your interpretation?
A. No, it's not my interpretation. That's what it says.
If you look at the previous column where it says "unit",
the heading "unit", and then there is a small "t". "t"
is for metric tonne, so it's saying $1,200 per metric
11:23 Q. Which page are you referring to now?
A. The same page. If you look at the figure that you just
Q. We are looking at I-beam 2, right?
A. Yes, it doesn't look whether we look at 2 or 3, but if
you look at 2 and read across, it has 2, then the
dimensions, then it has a "t". Okay, "t" stands for --
Q. So that is price per tonne?
A. Per metric tonne.
Q. Let's assume that we proceed on your basis, were these
the I-beams that were used in these premises?
A. Okay, the dimensions of the I-beams varied --
Q. Were these the I-beams that were used?
A. Okay, if you -- I have to refer to another document
because you really need to refer back to the variation,
so if I refer to the 2nd defendant's affidavit, to the
Q. My question is a simple one, answer "yes" or "no",
Mr Crispin. Were mild steel I-beams what were used in
this contract --
A. Okay --
Q. -- or was structural steel used?
A. No, no, mild steel I-beams were used, the main heading
is "Structural steelwork", the specific subheading is
"Universal beams/column sections" and in general -- the
11:25 dimensions vary slightly but typically, the steel was
roughly 250 by 250.
Q. So according to you, we should use page 26, rather than
page 430 of the CPG guidelines; am I right?
Q. The CPG refers to this as structural steelwork and
metalwork, 3.50 per kg; am I right?
A. At page 430, for solid section, yes.
Q. So we really need to know whether the actual beams used
come from page 26 of the plaintiff's bundle or whether
the reference should be page 430 of the 2nd defendant's
bundle; am I right?
Q. And that makes a huge difference of 120 to 3.50 or 3.70
or 3.80 per kg; am I right?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. So if you are wrong, your valuation would be off by
about $56,000, just on steel alone; am I right?
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. A different of $2 per kg according to you, 28,000 kg, so
that is $56,000 off on steel alone; am I right?
Q. So, did you ask RSP Architects, the structural engineers
what was the type of steel beams used?
A. No, because it's in the Mason Works variation.
11:27 Q. Now, if you look at RSP Architects' drawings, it would
specify, in the structural drawings, the type of steel
beams to be used; am I right?
A. I would hope so, yes.
Q. Did you look at RSP's structural drawings?
A. No, I looked at the Mason Works quotation.
Q. Hang on, hang on, Mr Crispin. You didn't look at RSP
A. No, I looked at Mason Works' quotation.
Q. So basically what did you was you took a quotation, you
didn't refer to any independent assessments, off the top
of your head you gave an assessment of what the two
quotations should be; am I right?
A. No, because the quotation gives the dimensions of the
Q. Mr Crispin, I'm really sorry to suggest this to you, you
have been facing a fair bit of financial problems with
banks suing you; am I right?
A. Well, I don't know, you had better be specific, although
Q. I did a litigation search. There are at least two or
three banks --
MR VIJAY: What is the relevance of this? What is the
relevance of this? This is totally uncalled for and
what has it got to do with your case here?
11:28 MR SREENIVASAN: I think I have established sufficient basis
to show that this witness, I am going to submit, should
not even be admitted as an expert.
MR VIJAY: That's perfectly okay --
MR SREENIVASAN: He has sold his views --
MR VIJAY: But what has that got to do whether he has money
or no money in the bank? He can answer what you are
bringing up but --
MR SREENIVASAN: Your Honour, the Evidence Act allows me to
put forward the suggestion. If he denies it, I can't
adduce evidence that goes only to credibility, so I can
put the question to him, he can deny it and then we
don't have a problem.
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, the Evidence Act does not allow
questions just to insult witnesses especially when it
has absolutely no connection --
MR SREENIVASAN: I will come back to it later, your Honour.
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, what is the relevance, first of all,
COURT: Leaving it aside, should he bring it up again, then
we will deal with it?
MR VIJAY: But having brought it aside, I will now ask
Mr Crispin whether he wants to explain, because
sometimes these things, when they are left unanswered
they do more harm, so I leave that decision to
11:29 Mr Crispin. He may want to answer it just to clear.
I will leave that to him but I think it's totally
uncalled for and unfair.
We were talking about comparing prices and
dimensions of steel and then it has gone to financial
status. This is a very unfair questioning. He is now
trying to explain he got the measurements from Mason
Works' quotation and all of a sudden you jump to
What is the connection for a start, your Honour?
I must place on record my strong objection to this line
COURT: All right.
Do you want to say anything? If not, we will move
A. Well, I think I have no choice but to say something as
it has been raised.
I think, firstly, I was a bit taken aback by this
sort of sudden jump of questioning. I was expecting
a question why banks charge so much for steel and
I think this is a personal and a private issue and
inappropriate to ask you. But nevertheless, as it has
been asked, I think this issue relates to joint accounts
between my ex-wife and me, and that relates to
a particularly unpleasant and unfortunate divorce. That
11:30 divorce was made somewhat worse by the fact that my
divorce lawyer was Charles Ezekiel who, during my court
case when he was acting for me, disappeared and in fact
I was not even told by my solicitors until I read it in
the Straits Times that something had happened. So the
result of that was a very messy divorce, the majority of
the financial liabilities, if not all, were on me, and
I'm more than sad to say that my financial situation is
particularly bad, but I still have to do my work,
I still have to look at my children, et cetera,
et cetera, and, as I said, I think it's totally
inappropriate to raise an issue of that subject.
MR SREENIVASAN: I do apologise if it was inappropriate,
MR VIJAY: I think anyone, especially with my learned
friend's experience knows it is inappropriate, could
I have the benefit of asking similar questions to his
Another issue of housekeeping, your Honour, I have
asked my client, because is a potential witness, to go
out, questions were coming on in this area of Mason
Works' quotation, and figures that were involved, where
it does affect any cross-examination later, in all
fairness, can my client be inside or alternatively they
all be outside because there is a -- especially with
11:32 Mason Works, not so much Mr Poole.
MR SREENIVASAN: It doesn't concern me, I don't mind either
way where Mr Vijay's client is.
COURT: All right.
MR VIJAY: In which case can I call my client back to be
fair to all?
COURT: Do you need a five-minute break?
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, perhaps.
MR SRINEEVASAN: Mr Crispin, just to close up the steel
issue, do you agree that the quotation describes the
structural steel members as per the RSP drawings?
A. Sorry, you are referring to the Mason Works quotation?
Q. Yes, that's right, for structural steel, it doesn't only
give a description of the steel, it says "as per RSP
Q. Do you agree that the RSP drawings set out which BS,
British Standards, have to be followed for the steel?
A. British Standards for the steel, in terms of what
Q. It says it's BS5950, that's what the structural drawings
12:00 A. I don't know, I have not seen the structural drawings.
Q. Do you also agree that the structural drawings say that
the grade should be S275?
A. No, I don't know.
Q. Do you agree that if the structural drawings do in fact
say BS5950 and grade 275, then the appropriate way of
calculating the cost would be that set out at page 430
of the 2nd defendant's bundle of documents. Page 430 is
the one that says 3.50, 3.70 and 3.80 per kg. (Pause.)
I repeat my question --
A. It's okay.
No, I disagree that the $3.50 per kilogram figure at
page 430 is just a very general figure and doesn't take
account of specific dimensions for the structural steel.
Q. Do you agree that it takes it --
A. I have not finished.
Q. Oh, sorry.
A. That's why it's inappropriate, it's wrong to refer to
that figure on page E41. You have to refer to the other
table which is much more specific, which is at page 26
of the plaintiff's bundle of documents, which refers to
specific structural member sizes, you know, dimensions,
because obviously the price varies according to the size
of the steel, not simply the weight of the steel, so you
can't use a general figure to look at specific examples.
12:02 Q. Mr Crispin, the price at page 26 is priced by weight; am
I right? According to you, it's per tonne.
Q. The price at page 430 of the 2nd defendant's bundle is
priced per kg; am I right?
A. Okay, the price -- let me just check the actual original
Q. Are you looking for the thick CPG document?
Q. Sorry, I took that back.
A. Okay, I need the page number because I can't see it on
my copy -- okay, page E41.
Q. Let me help you. The one at 2nd defendant's bundle 430
is the one that includes cost of fabrications and all
other relevant items, while the reference you put in is
only cost of material.
A. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that, can you repeat that,
Q. The one that I'm referring to is the correct one,
according to CPG; do you agree?
A. Is that what you said? I thought you said something
Q. I'm rephrasing my question.
A. Sorry, can you say it one more time so I'm clear.
Q. The one at page 430 is the correct one, according to
A. I disagree, because CPG includes more than one
Q. Now --
A. No, let me finish. As I said, at page 430 it's just
a general figure, it's not specific to particular
structural column sizes. That's why I referred to
page 26 in the plaintiff's bundle.
Q. Do you agree that page 26 of the plaintiff's bundle does
not refer to the grade of steel for the applicable BS
A. I agree.
Q. So we have one that gives dimensions and we have another
that gives the grade and the applicable British
Standards; am I right?
Q. Both give the price by weight; am I right?
A. The price by weight, did you say?
Q. The RSP drawings refer to a particular British Standard
and a particular grade; am I right?
Q. But you don't know that because you never saw the
drawings; am I right?
12:05 A. Correct, but conversely, at page 430, there is no detail
as to the column or structural member size, so you
cannot assume that it's relevant.
Q. So you have chosen to ignore the fact that page 26 does
not refer to the applicable British Standard or grade;
am I right?
A. No, I'm not ignoring it but I am saying that in my
opinion, page 26 is relevant and specific, whereas page
430 is very general.
Q. Mr Crispin, you never saw the drawings; am I right?
Q. Until this morning, you didn't know that the drawings
referred to a particular grade or BS standards; am I
A. Well, I don't know whether it was this morning, but
Q. In fact, if we go and look at the 2nd defendant's
bundle, if you turn to page 433 -- the same bundle,
where 430 is, just turn a few pages down to page 433, we
have a table where RSP describes the steel for used; am
Q. If you turn to page 431, at the bottom, there is an
email from RSP addressed to William Graham:
"We attach the steel tonnage computation used for
12:07 the schemes approved by the authority" --
A. Sorry, which page again?
Q. Page 431 at the bottom, from Sunny Wong to Bill:
"We attach to the steel tonnage computation for both
the schemes approved by the authority and the one
actually built on site."
Can you see that?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. And this attachment is at pages 433, 434 onwards; am
Q. And RSP, when they give their computation, use weight;
am I right?
A. They used weight, yes.
Q. They have used BS applicable steel grade; am I right?
A. Well, they actually used -- they refer to two grades.
A. It says S, it's probably "SS" but it's standard 275 and
standard 355, whereas the general figure of $3.50 refers
to S275 and BS5950.
Q. Yes, Mr Crispin. If you look at this, do you agree that
the S355 is a very small quantity, it's only 174 tonnes,
everything else is --
12:09 A. 174 kilograms?
Q. 174 kilograms. So the 355 is a very small quantity, do
A. I agree, but it doesn't refer to BS5950.
Q. Since it doesn't refer to BS5950, do you know whether
S275 is equivalent to BS5950?
A. I don't know, I would have to check.
Q. Do you agree it would be relevant to know whether BS5950
is referred to in the structural drawings?
A. Well, that wouldn't be my primary concern, which British
Standard or Singapore standard the steel refers to.
My primary concern would be which rate is correct
and which is relevant.
Q. Would the rate be the same for all different types of
A. Well, in general, for this dimension of steel, I would
expect one particular structural grade, not many
particular structural grades.
Q. Would the rate be the same?
A. If the structural grade is similar the rate should be
Q. So you need to know the structural grade; am I right?
A. Well, I think that, as I said earlier, more relevant is
the dimensions --
Q. Do you need to know the structural grade?
12:10 A. Well it may be referred to but I can't find it.
Q. Do you need to know the structural grade to find out the
cost of the steel?
A. No, I don't think so. I think what's more relevant is
the dimensions of the steel, and that's what's
specifically stated and that's why I used page 26 and
not page 430 which is a very general figure.
Q. Your explanation for the big difference between page 26
and page 430 is? What's your explanation?
A. I thought you were going to say something.
No, my explanation is that page 26 is specific in
terms of dimensions and in effect density because it's
kilograms per metre, whereas the figure of $3.50 at page
430 is just a very general figure, and in terms of
correlation with the variation, it's much clearer that
the figures at page 26 would apply and not the general
figure at page 430.
Q. Let's be scientific, Mr Crispin, if page 430 puts 3.50
and page 26 puts 1.20 per kilogram, and there is
therefore a difference of $2.30 per kilograms,
a variation of almost 200 per cent upwards, and they are
both contained in the same source, there must be
a reason for the difference in price; do you agree?
12:12 Q. There can be one of two reasons: it is very cheap to
fabricate I-beams such as that described in page 26, as
compared to whatever is being described in page 430, so
the page 26 items are much cheaper, one-third of the
price because they are cheap to fabricate -- that's one
possible explanation; am I right?
A. Well, I think that is an oversimplification and I think
it's missing the point.
Q. No, no, hang on. Is it a possible explanation?
A. That it's cheaper? No, because you are not comparing
like for like so you can't make a comparison --
Q. We have two different figures for the price of steel; am
A. You have two different figures for steel members which
can be completely different and therefore not
Q. That's right and we are trying to find out what the
difference is because you have chosen one over the
Q. The difference is that page 26 gives the dimensions and
the density per metre; am I right?
A. Page 26 gives specific dimension whereas page 430 gives
Q. Mr Crispin, you are here to answer my questions.
12:13 Page 26 gives specific dimensions and density per metre;
am I right?
Q. Page 430 does not; am I right?
Q. Page 430 gives a specific description of the BS
standards and the grade of steel; am I right?
A. Well, it refers to the British Standard and the grade of
steel, it doesn't refer --
Q. So am I right?
A. No, let me finish, it doesn't refer to the specific type
of profile or steel or use of steel.
Q. Mr Crispin, I know that, I am not an idiot. My question
was very straightforward. Does it refer to the British
Standards and the grade of steel?
A. Okay --
Q. Is it a "yes" or "no"?
A. I think firstly I would appreciate a level of decorum,
I don't appreciate being shouted at.
Q. And I would appreciate a level of forthrightness. My
question is does page 430 refer to the British Standards
and the grade of steel; "yes" or "no"?
A. It does, yes, it does.
Q. So we have one description that gives the profile and
density, but not the grade, and another that gives the
12:14 grade, but not the profile and density; am I right?
Q. So one description is partially complete in terms of
profiling and density and another is partially complete
in terms of standard and grade; am I right?
Q. We have to choose one or the other; am I right?
Q. The one at page 430, you can take my word for it, is the
description given by RSP Architects in the structural
drawing, it is also the description given in terms of
grade in their email; do you agree?
Q. So, Mr Crispin, when you chose page 26 instead of 430,
tell us why -- first, did you consider the figures at
A. Yes, I did, I saw the figures.
Q. Then, did you check what was the actual market rate for
the beams of the type supplied to The Pump Room?
A. Yes, which is what is referred to at page 26, because
that is specific for the size of beam.
Q. When you said you checked page 430, did you know what
was the applicable BS standards and grade of steel? You
A. Well, I have not answered yet. When I looked at
12:16 page 430, when I look at the CPG quarterly publication
in general, I looked at both pages and I made a decision
which I thought was more relevant and which was more
specific. Simply because there is a British Standard
referred to doesn't necessarily cover all situations.
My concern was the dimensions and the density of the
steel and those dimensions and densities are very close
to what was used in Mason Works' quotation, and that's
why I referred to those as opposed to the general figure
at page 430.
Q. You had not seen the RSP drawings; am I right?
Q. You didn't know that the applicable standard was BS5950;
am I right?
A. The applicable standard BS5950 or grade S275 does not
necessarily mean that the other structural steel is
Q. Can you listen to my question. If you can't want some
decorum then please listen and answer.
You didn't know that it was BS5950 and S275; am I
Q. You didn't know that page 430 could be applicable; am I
A. No, I made a decision that page 430 was not applicable
12:17 because it was too general.
Q. You made that decision without knowing what were the
specs; am I right?
A. No, because if you read a figure of $3.50 per kilogram
actually it's fairly meaningless because there is not
enough detail provided in the description to find if
that wig figure is useful, that's why I refer to
Q. Do you agree that the grade of steel might be a useful
A. No, because this is both referring to structural steel.
Q. Then explain to me, since you could choose one over the
other, why is there a discrepancy in the same data given
by the same body?
A. Well, I wouldn't describe it as a discrepancy, I would
simply describe it that page 430 is a fairly general
figure whereas page 26 is a specific figure with
Q. So page 430, which is almost 200 per higher, what's the
reason for it being 200 per cent higher?
A. It could be many reasons. It could be because it's
referring to very small pieces of steel and because it
doesn't give particular dimensions. Actually, it's
impossible to tell.
Q. So one possible reason is it refers to very small pieces
12:19 of steel?
Q. What are the other possible reasons?
A. Beyond that it's difficult to say because there is not
enough detail in the description.
Q. Mr Crispin, are you prepared concede that another reason
for the discrepancy may be the grade of steel?
A. No, I don't think so because they are both structural
Q. So what's the grade at page 26: given by BS standards or
A. Page 26 doesn't refer to grade --
Q. You tell me what the grade is.
A. It just refers to structural steelwork and it refers to
specific dimensions for steel beams.
Q. So could it be a difference in grade?
A. Sorry, a difference in grade --
Q. To explain the price difference.
A. No, I don't think so. I think it's simply because page
26 is specific.
Q. Then what is page 430, what does it refer to?
A. I mean it's referring to a mixture of possibilities. As
it says, stanchion, beam, girder, roof truss, purlin,
pleat and bracket.
Q. All of different dimensions; am I right?
12:20 A. Well, different dimensions --
Q. All of different profiles?
A. Different profiles, correct.
Q. Yet one price; am I right? Because they are all of the
same grade and the same British Standards; am I right?
A. No, I don't think so at all.
Q. So come back, since you are here as an expert, other
than saying that there is a specific dimension in page
26, can you offer us any explanation why page 430 is
almost three times the price?
A. Well, I think that simply the price of $3.50 is a very
general price and it cannot be used in specific
examples, whereas page 26 is quite specific so that's
the one I chose.
Q. Page 26 is specific in terms of dimension and density;
am I right?
Q. Page 430 is specific in terms of grade of steel; am I
Q. Steel is sold by weight and not by length or profile; am
A. It's sold by weight, yes.
Q. So, if we want to exercise some common sense, we would
go on the basis that the weight is a major factor; am I
A. The weight is a major factor for specific steel
dimensions. It doesn't mean that all steel of any
dimension has the same price.
Q. Why don't we go back to your page 26. We can see that
the dimensions change a lot; am I right? In all the
items there, the smallest one up front is 100 by 100 and
17.2 kg per metre; am I right?
Q. Then if we go to the biggest, item 6, it's 356 times 368
times 177 kg per metre; am I right?
Q. The weight per metre has gone up dramatically because
the profile is bigger; am I right?
Q. So with this dramatic change in profile -- let's see,
100 by 100 -- that's about 10 cm by 10 cm, that's about
4 inches by 4 inches; am I right?
Q. 368 times 368, that's about 14 inches by 14inches; am I
Q. So this huge increase in profile size gives us an
increase in price of less than 20 per cent; am I right?
A. Roughly, yes.
12:23 Q. Now we also know that the length of quite irrelevant
because they only give the profile; am I right?
Q. So if we were to look at your page 26, it shows that
two-dimensional 300 per cent increase, if you go by
cross-sectional area, 10 times increase gives us
a 20 per cent increase in price; am I right?
A. When you talk about cross-sectional area, these are not
solid square-shaped pieces.
Q. Okay, fine. Then let's just stick to the
two-dimensional increase of three times gives you
a 20 per cent increase in price; am I right?
Q. So if we were to look at profile size, co-related to
price increase, it's not very significant; am I right?
A. Within reason, yes.
Q. So that profile size cannot explain the 200 or the three
times price increase between page 26 and page 430; am I
A. The profile size? Well, you're not really comparing
like for like because you don't know what the figure of
$3.50 is actually referring to in any profile or shape.
Q. Do you?
A. You don't.
Q. Do you?
12:24 A. No, I don't, that's what I said.
Q. And you rejected it?
A. Yes, I rejected it because it's general and there is an
alternative which is specific.
Q. And the specific alternative does not refer to steel
grade at all; am I right?
A. Correct, it refers to structural steelwork.
Q. Which comes in different grades; am I right?
A. It will but not significantly different. The main
concern is that it's structural steel.
Q. Did you call up anybody to find out why page 430 was so
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Do you consider yourself an expert on structures?
A. In what respect?
Q. That you are able to give evidence to say structural
steel is all about the same?
A. Well, I didn't say -- my evidence wasn't that structural
steel was all about the same but I am quite expert
enough to see that page 26 is relevant and page 430 is
really not the page to use.
Q. Did you pick up the phone and call up RSP Architects and
ask them, "Since you are the structural experts, which
would be the relevant factor, relevant value to use?"
A. No, I made my own decision.
12:26 Q. Are you prepared to pick up the phone at lunchtime, call
up RSP Architects and come back and tell us what they
think or whether you are prepared to change your view?
A. Well, I'm prepared to speak to RSP if there is somebody
willing to speak to me and there is a contact number,
Q. You can call Mr Sunny Wong and his contact number --
A. I'd better write it down. Is Mr Sunny Wong aware that
I'll be calling him?
MR SRINEEVASAN: I am sure Mr Vijay can arrange for --
MR VIJAY: No, no. I never heard of such things. I don't
want to interrupt your cross-examination. I am not
a party to this kind of ...
MR SRINEEVASAN: Mr Crispin, do you think it would be good
and helpful to the court that you actually talk to
somebody familiar with structural matters and structural
steel on which is the appropriate costing to use?
A. Well, I don't think it's going to change my opinion
because my opinion is quite clear but I would have
thought that that person would really need to give their
Q. Hang on, hang on. If I put forward an expert on
structural steel in front of you, whatever he says will
not change your opinion?
A. My opinion is quite clear in terms of which I think is
12:27 the relevant set of costs to follow.
Q. Are you prepared to reconsider your opinion?
A. I'm always prepared to hear views if it's correct to do
Q. As long as they agree with you?
A. No, I didn't say that, and I don't think that should be
Q. So are you prepared, if give you the name of a reputable
structural engineer familiar with steel construction, to
answer -- to give you his views as to which is the
correct figure to use?
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, I must object to this line of
questioning. First, it is for my learned friend to
discredit or credit past questions and get the answer
My learned friend, as I understand, has no expert,
on steel or otherwise, witness. Having not provided for
alternative expert, now he wants this witness to go and
get him a witness to bring evidence in this court.
I think that's highly inappropriate, I have made these
RSP documents available to them, I also made it clear
that they can subpoena RSP.
MR SRINEEVASAN: This document was made available on Friday.
MR VIJAY: They are documents from RSP, everyone can go to
RSP and get these documents, not specifically to me. I
12:28 got them and made them available to everyone.
MR SRINEEVASAN: Your Honour, actually my learned friend has
missed the point. I think the point which I will submit
on is that this witness lacks so much objectivity and is
not even prepared to consider getting the views of
people more knowledgeable in any area, and I would
submit on that. My only regret is my learned friend
seems to share that a lack of objectivity.
If I may move on, your Honour.
MR VIJAY: Now, your Honour, I have taken down that the
witness said that he is prepared to listen to views so
he can make his submission but that is not what the
If you want to discredit the witness with your
questions, go ahead, but how can you ask my witness to
go and look for some witnesses elsewhere and bring him
to court? If you need him, you subpoena him, you bring
him here and prove otherwise.
MR SRINEEVASAN: Your Honour, if I may proceed.
MR SRINEEVASAN: Mr Crispin, other than your evidence that
the profile is specific in page 26 and no profile is set
up at page 430, do you have any other view on why there
is a 200 per cent difference in the price of structural
steel set out in the same CPG document?
12:30 A. I think that that's something that CPG could probably
answer better but as I said earlier, the figure at page
430 is very, very general, and refers to various types
of steel, not just structural steel but pleats and
brackets, et cetera, so it seems to be a more indicative
figure, a general figure as opposed to a specific
Q. Other than that, do you want to add any other reasons
why you chose page 26 over page 430?
A. No, thank you.
Q. Do you agree that page 430, as you have pointed out, is
a general description that would include end plates?
A. That would include what, sorry?
Q. E-n-d p-l-a-t-e-s?
A. End rates?
Q. E-n-d p-l-a-t-e-s?
A. Sorry, I couldn't catch it. Could you repeat your
Q. Page 430 includes items like end plates?
A. It doesn't say "end plates".
Q. I'm asking you. I know it doesn't; if it does
I wouldn't ask you.
A. Well, it's not giving end plates as a specific
Q. Does it include end plates?
12:32 A. It doesn't say that it does, no.
Q. I know it doesn't, Mr Crispin, I am able to read. My
question to you as an expert is does it include end
A. It's not clear.
Q. Okay. Do you know whether it does?
A. No, I don't because, as I said, it's not clear.
Q. So you can only go on what you read at page 430?
A. Well, I read 430 and I decided it was not clear and
Q. So before you disregarded it as not clear and specific,
did you seek any assistance from someone who ought to
know or who would know what 430 refers to?
A. No, because this publication is now discontinued so I'm
not sure who I could speak to, but I'm quite happy with
the figures at page 26.
Q. Of course you are, you are very happy with them; am
A. Because they are specific and clear.
Q. In terms of size and profile?
Q. But not in terms of grade and standards?
A. No, I didn't say that.
Q. I'm putting it to you that the figures at page 26 were
not specific, in fact were general in terms of grade and
A. No, I disagree because it's referring to structural
MR SREENIVASAN: I will move on, your Honour.
MR VIJAY: Your Honour, if my learned friend is putting
a proposal to the witness, then he must have the
evidence for which he is putting that. As I understand
there are no witnesses who are going to give evidence,
at least on behalf of his client, so I don't understand
the basis for putting that when they have no other
witness to say otherwise.
MR SREENIVASAN: Your Honour, there is a Tamil saying:
covering a hole with darkness. I think it would suffice
for me to point out to the witness what he has said,
what he has not said, the witness has given us the basis
of his selection and I will submit in my submission of
no basis, my learned friend can submit accordingly.
MR VIJAY: Yes, if he submits --
MR SREENIVASAN: (Unclear -- simultaneous speakers).
MR VIJAY: If you are saying it is no basis submission,
I have no quarrels with that.
MR SRINEEVASAN: So wait for my submission but if you are
MR VIJAY: No.
MR SRINEEVASAN: Wait for my submission.
12:34 MR VIJAY: Sorry, I'm objecting to your put question because
you have no basis to put that question.
COURT: Can we move on?
MR SRINEEVASAN: Yes, your Honour.
Let's go back to your expert -- sorry, let me be
accurate -- let's go back to your report.
If you can turn to page 139 of your affidavit, we
were dealing with the words "conduct and assessment of
the claimed variation works" -- have you found it?
A. Yes, 139.
Q. I had touched on but not followed up on the difference,
if any, between an assessment and a valuation -- is
there a difference? Think carefully because these are
terms of art.
A. Sorry, you are referring to the second --
Q. Bullet point 2, "to conduct an assessment of the claim
variation works". Is there a difference between
"assessment" and "valuation"?
A. No, I don't think so.
Q. Okay. So the words are interchangeable, according to
you, in the context of your report?
Q. You then have given a valuation of various works that
were carried out; am I right?
12:36 Q. If I can just turn you or ask you to turn to page 160,
Q. Structural and flooring plans for brewery, you put no
quotation and a claimed variation of $80,000.
Q. I don't know what Mr Ong's position on this is going to
be but I looked through the documents and I couldn't
find a claimed variation or variation claim of $80,000.
Can you help us?
A. I would have to go back through my file. I know that
there is no number but I remember seeing initially
a document that was referring to structural flooring
Q. No, you have valued this at 10,000 so you should know
what you valued.
Q. You must have gone there and valued it.
Q. What did you value?
A. I valued it as being in relation to the structural
floor, as it says, for the brewery.
Q. Forget what it says.
Q. This item is something, according to you, Mason Works
12:38 claimed $80,000; am I right?
Q. And according to you, what they did was only worth
$10,000; am I right?
Q. So we need to find something that they have claimed
Q. And after that we can cross-examine you on your
valuation of $10,000, right?
Q. I can't find anything that they have claimed $80,000
for. Can you help us?
A. Well, as I said, firstly, when I went through the
documents initially, I saw, you know, a document,
although it wasn't a quotation claiming $80,000. I know
that there is some confusion regarding this item, and
I think that's also reflected in the 2nd defendant's
Q. No, forget about the 2nd defendant's expert report,
I want to know where you got this $80,000 figure because
your affidavit in the earlier parts has listed
quotations, claims, invoices, all sorts of documents and
I can't find $80,000.
A. There is a document I remember seeing originally when
12:39 I went through all the documents --
Q. It is in your report -- explain it?
A. The summary is in my report but when I originally did my
assessment, I looked at a lot of documents and one of
those documents would have referred to $80,000.
Q. Mr Crispin, the documents relating to the works are also
exhibited in your affidavit; am I right?
A. Well, not all the documents.
Q. The documents relied upon by you in your report, where
you say Mr Ong's clients charged 80,000 instead of 10
and so must pay back 70,000 -- this is part of your
report; am I right, item 9?
A. Well, I'm saying that my assessment was 10,000, yes.
Q. And that Mr Ong's clients charged 80,000?
A. Well, I am saying there was a variation that said
Q. And the plaintiff is saying that my client has to pay,
amongst lots of other things, this $70,000, so I'm quite
concerned on this 80 minus 10 equals 70, so before we
question you on your 10, what I would like to know is
where did the 80 come from, because the plaintiff wants
my client to pay. It's more than my fees.
A. No, I'm saying that it's 10,000. I'm not saying --
Q. No, no, what is 10,000, Mr Crispin -- it?
A. I'm saying that the 10,000 was for structural and
12:41 flooring works for the brewery as it says, based on
a document that I saw when I went through all the
Q. You are saying it should be 10,000 instead of 80; am
A. Yes, correct.
Q. So what is the 80?
A. Well, I would have to try and find the actual document.
Q. You have put it in your report.
A. Yes, I know.
Q. You have exhibited relevant documents to your affidavit.
I don't mind if my learned friend assists, your Honour,
so we can save time. I'm sure the relevant document
would have been discovered.
MR VIJAY: I don't know -- what am I supposed --
MR SRINEEVASAN: You were not paying attention.
MR VIJAY: What assistance are you talking about?
MR SREENIVASAN: If you look at page 160 of your expert's
MR VIJAY: I have nothing to add to his evidence.
MR SRINEEVASAN: So, Mr Crispin, you are on your own, please
help us with the $80,000 document.
A. Well, I would have to go through the original documents
that I went through when I did my inspection to find it.
12:42 COURT: Shall we give him to time to look for it?
MR SREENIVASAN: Yes, your Honour.
But if you can't find anything, we can cancel this
off; am I right?
A. Well, I would ask to be allowed to look first.
Q. Never mind. Can you turn to page 159, item 1,
"Alterations and additions and fitting-out works" --
452 -- you have not put in any variations and you have
not given a valuation to that; am I right?
A. Maybe I just explained --
Q. No, no, hang on. You have to answer my questions. You
have not given a valuation to that?
Q. So now, if you turn over to the back at page 161, are
you aware that it is the plaintiff's claim of about
$500,000-odd which is essentially variation minus
A. Sorry, you are referring now to page 161?
A. And you're saying ...?
Q. Are you aware that the plaintiff's claim is variation
A. Variation minus valuation?
Q. The total for variation is 815,569, the total for
valuation is 251,940, are you aware the difference
12:44 between the two figures is the plaintiff's claim?
A. No, I don't think I have seen the plaintiff's claim.
Q. Now, would I be correct to say that you did not carry
out a valuation of item 1 at page 159?
A. Item 1 which is the $452,000 quotation, I had a look at
the quotation and I also had a look at the quotation
prior to that; in fact, this was at least a second
quotation for this work, so this was a more finalised
figure than the original figure, so I used this figure,
although there seemed to be some anomalies between this
and the first figure.
Q. Mr Crispin, I think it's very important if you listen to
my question, because you have to answer my questions.
Did you carry out a valuation of the works
encompassed in item 1?
A. As individual items, no.
Q. No, collectively, the total of 452,000, did you carry
out a valuation?
A. You mean whether I thought the figure was reasonable?
A. I thought for the project 452,000 was reasonable.
Q. Mr Crispin, I'm really sorry, because you are not
answering my question.
Did you carry out a valuation of the works set out
in item 1?
12:45 COURT: It's either "yes" or "no"/
A. Okay. The answer is "yes", because I went through the
figures compared with the previous quotation.
MR SRINEEVASAN: Did you inspect the works at site?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. So in terms of item 1, this would be the quotation given
at 8 September 2006; am I right?
A. Maybe I'd better check the dates.
Q. I think you'd better, but maybe I will help you. Sorry,
it's 10 September, it starts at page 51 -- it's either
the 8th or the 10th, there are two different dates, and
the total price is found at the end at page 62. It's
also found in page 64 at the end of it all?
A. Yes, maybe for clarity at page 62 it's 452, and then at
page 64 it's 452, and this is excluding what's referred
to as the PC sum items.
Q. The figure looks exactly the same to me -- the 452 is
pre-GST and the 474 is post-GST.
A. That part I agree, yes, one is without GST and one is
with GST --
Q. So this correlates with item 1 of your valuation; am
A. Yes, I have referred to the figures all without GST.
Q. Without GST, that's right.
So you have not done a valuation of this item, of
12:48 the items in this quotation; am I right?
A. Okay, my only assessment was looking at the differences
between the first and the second quotation.
Q. Now, Mr Crispin, do you agree that building costs, if I
were to go and buy an apartment, which I would never be
able to afford to, from SC Global, the cost per square
foot that the contractor or the developer would have
imposed would have expanded, it might be very high,
300/350 per square foot, am I right, or even higher?
A. Sorry, can you say that again?
Q. If I were to go to a very high end developer, someone
like SC Global, the cost per square foot for the
developers' construction can be very high, 350/400 per
square foot; am I right?
A. Well, I don't know. I've not studied their costs.
Q. Alternatively, if I go to a very low end developer and
I shall not mention any names, it could be built at $150
per square foot; am I right?
A. Not necessarily, no.
Q. If I were to renovate any house -- my house -- I can
spend half a million dollars or $50,000 for the same
area; am I right?
A. The same area but different work.
Q. Different work, different finishes; am I right?
12:50 Q. I can put tiling at $3.20 per square foot or at $18 per
square foot; am I right?
A. You can, yes.
Q. When I renovate a pub or a restaurant, I can renovate it
with plastic tables and chairs like McDonald's, or I can
go high end; am I right?
A. "High end", you mean more expensive?
Q. Very much more expensive.
A. You can, yes.
Q. So the price variations, when you look at renovation
costs for a restaurant, can be very wide; am I right?
A. Price variations for a restaurant?
A. Okay, yes.
Q. Now, in this particular instance prior to this, have you
ever valued the works needed in renovating or doing up
Q. Which restaurant?
A. This was really a food court.
Q. This is a food court?
A. No, I'm referring to a food court.
Q. Oh, okay. Well, I think a food court is a bit different
from a restaurant, am I right?
A. In terms of --
12:51 Q. I'm sure Mr Graham likes to think that The Pump Room is
one up on a food court.
A. In terms of the quality of finishes there is
a difference, but, obviously, they both have tiles,
air-conditioning, kitchens, et cetera.
Q. A kitchen would be different between a food court and
a restaurant; am I right?
A. Well, in the food court there were multiple kitchens in
Q. The kitchen here is put up by Sommerville, Mr Graham's
company; am I right?
A. Well, I don't know whose company it is.
Q. Well, the one thing we have here, Mr Crispin, that you
don't have in a restaurant is a brewery -- which you
don't have in a food court; am I right?
Q. So have you ever had any experience in valuing the works
done in a restaurant?
A. In a restaurant, you mean a high end restaurant
restaurant like this?
Q. Yes. Just say "no".
A. No, I'm just trying to recall. Not that I can remember
offhand, not this high end.
Q. Have you ever valued the works done for a brewery?
A. A brewery, no.
12:52 Q. Prior to this, have you ever valued M&E works?
A. M&E works, yes.
Q. Have you ever valued structural works?
A. You mean like a structural frame?
Q. Steel structure.
Q. And when you valued the steel structure, did you also
use $1.20 per kilogram?
A. Well, that was at a different time so I used the
relevant figure at that time.
MR SREENIVASAN: Now, with his Honour's leave, I'll take
a break, I think it might be apt, but there are a few
things I would like the witness to consider doing; first
bring down all your measurements that you took on site;
second, purely as a suggestion, no more than that, pick
up the phone and call a structural engineer that you
might know and see whether you want to change your
evidence on the cost of steel.
Your Honour, I will be about another half an hour or
45 minutes after lunch, after which my learned friend
Mr Ong will be cross-examining.
2.30, your Honour?
(The luncheon adjournment)
14:31 (2.45 pm)
MR SREENIVASAN: Good afternoon, your Honour.
COURT: Good afternoon.
MR SREENIVASAN: Mr Crispin, when you looked at the CPG
norms did you look at selected pages or did you look at
the entire publication of CPG?
A. The document -- I looked at the entire document.
Q. And you are aware that CPG is the privatised arm of PWD?
Q. And the entire document which I have shown you this
morning -- I will now give you a full copy -- would be
this; am I right?
MR SREENIVASAN: Your Honour, may this be tendered and
marked as D2-1.
MR SREENIVASAN: I'm respectfully suggesting, because there
are three defendants, the documents can originate from
different parties, this document in fact originated in
my learned friend Mr Ong's client.
COURT: All right.
MR SREENIVASAN: If you look at this document, Mr Crispin,
can you turn to the page that says section E, the first
page of section E. The section numbering is at the
bottom right-hand corner, there is a little circle, E
14:46 page 1. Can you see it?
A. Okay, I can see E, but the numbering -- the number is
not clear but I can see "Preambles".
Q. In fact, above the E, about one and a half inches above
the E, you will find the page number, 1.
A. It's missing, but never mind.
Q. If you look under "Preambles", you will find that this
section is headed "Fixed schedule of rates"; am I right?
Q. And when you looked at this you saw these words, "Fixed
schedule of rates"; am I right?
Q. If you can look at the preamble, can you read out 1.1?
A. "1.1 Introduction.
"This fixed schedule of rates (FSR) is intended to
be used for the pricing of variation. It is to be read
in conjunction with the other documents forming the
The clauses" --
Q. Let's stop there. In this particular case, you have
come forward and you have attempted to price the four
VOs; am I right -- the four variations?
A. Or however many, yes.
Q. Or however many. So when we say this fixed schedule of
rates is intended to be used for the pricing of
14:48 variation, you should be look at this as a first choice;
am I right?
A. You mean this section?
Q. This section.
A. Not necessarily, no.
Q. Okay, never mind, let's move on.
If you go to 1.3, "Description and Rates", and we go
over to the right-hand column in the middle:
"Unless otherwise stated, the following shall be
deemed to be included with all items:
(a) Labour and all costs in connection therewith."
Can you see that?
Q. In this case, the 2nd defendant was putting in the
structural steel with labour and all costs and
connection therewith; am I right?
A. In the Mason Works quotation, yes.
Q. (b) materials and goods including waste, laps, joints
and all costs in connection therewith."
So this concludes the cost of materials including
wastage; am I right?
Q. So you may have to chop up the I-beams, you have some
wastage here and there; am I right?
14:49 Q. And you have your connectors and your end plats -- you
don't have to turn the page yet, Mr Crispin, I will get
to the point. Just look at the page I want you to look
"(c) supplying, transporting, delivering, unloading,
storing and hoisting materials and return of packings."
Mason Works had to do that as well; am I right?
A. They would have done, yes.
Q. Then it includes straight, raked and circular cutting
the beams, the structural members would have to be cut;
am I right?
A. Well, they may have come to site precut.
Q. But it's -- okay, precut by whom?
A. Precut by the supplier.
Q. Let's skip that then.
"Fabricating, assembling, fitting, fixing and
bedding materials and goods in position."
Mason Works would have to do that; am I right?
Q. "Preparing surfaces to receive work", that would have to
be done; am I right?
Q. "Protecting materials and work", that would have to be
done by Mason Works; am I right?
14:51 Q. "Machinery, equipment and all costs", that would have to
be done because you have to weld the steel or bolt it
down. Either way you have to bring that equipment on
site and use it; am I right?
Q. "Cleaning up ... and making good", that has to be done;
am I right?
Q. And then "establishment charges, overhead charges,
preliminaries and profit", now that can either be
included in this clause or as a separate item; am
Q. So do you agree that the appropriate section of CPG's
quarterly report that should be used is section (f)?
A. Sorry, section (f)?
Q. Sorry, section (e).
A. Section (e). Well, it still comes down to the actual
Q. Hang on, before we come to the actual figure, can you
turn to page E6.
Q. In terms of structural steel and metalwork, 9.1,
"Measurement", this says:
"The mass of mild steel, stainless steel and
14:52 aluminium members shall be measured from their overall
lengths with no deductions for splay cuts, mitred ends
or for the mass of metal removed to form notches and
holes each not exceeding 0.10 metres squared."
That is the methodology of measurement; am I right?
Q. But that didn't matter to you because you didn't do any
measurement; am I right?
A. No, I didn't say that. This is really referring to
a sort of gross measurement.
Q. Did you do any measurements of steel?
A. For the lengths.
Q. You did?
Q. Okay, we'll come to your measurements then. The rates
includes the following, then we have items (a) to (f)
which are specific for steel; can you see that?
A. Rates 9.2, yes.
Q. And then for steel, you notice you need to put in two
coats of red lead primer; am I right?
A. Let me just see. This is item --
Q. Below (a) to (f) in 9.2, the rate of each item concludes
priming with two coats of red lead primer before
14:53 Q. Because steel can rust if you don't paint it with
primer; am I right?
Q. In your computation for steel, I take it that when you
valued the steelwork you have taken all these items into
A. Yes, these are sort of all-encompassing items.
Q. In your 1.20 per kg?
Q. These are all encompassed in your 1.20 per kg?
A. Okay, let me just --
Q. Am I right?
A. Hold on. Let me have another look.
Q. Take a good look. You're the professional.
A. Some of these items I'm saying should not be within that
Q. Which items?
A. In other words not within the $1.20 price.
Q. So tell me what is taken out from the $1.20.
A. Okay, this is going back to the first page, E1.
Q. Actually, Mr Crispin, E6 is more specific for mild
steel. E1 is general, E6 is specific for structural
steel and metalwork, so why don't we limit ourselves to
what you take out for E6.
A. Okay, E6 --
14:55 Q. 9.2, what do we take out from your 1.20? And after that
be prepared to tell us which other valuation we can put
A. No, I think you really have to refer to the first page,
Q. No, Mr Crispin, E1 refers to everything including
carpentry, concrete, splicing, painting and the works,
E6 has got the specific provisions of E1.
A. So are we now ignoring E1?
Q. No, we'll go to E1. It will just take longer and then
when you take out an item please also tell me how that
is relevant to steel in the first place.
A. Okay, so we go to E6 first.
Q. No, you want to do E1? I'm happy, I know where I'm
A. Well, I think maybe I start with E1 just because it
comes first in the page numbering.
Q. Okay, which one do you want to take out?
A. This is referring to the items (a) to (j). Let me just
go through them.
Item (e), which is the actual fabrication.
Q. It is the fabrication, assembling, fitting, fixing and
bedding materials and goods in position, you want to
take that out?
14:56 Q. So you don't have to put the steel out, do you?
A. No, I'm saying that's not included in the $1.20.
A. The same for (f).
A. And (g), and I. I'm saying those are not within the
Q. Now if you go to E6, 9.2, the specifics for steel, what
would you want to take out?
A. (c), which is the installation, and (d), which is also
Q. If we take out (c) and (d), have you provided for
installation elsewhere in your valuation?
Q. Okay. If you look at section (e) then, would I be
correct to say that the best approach would be to take
the price in section (e) and then make deductions for
those items that you have taken off; am I right? Would
I be correct, Mr Crispin?
A. Yes, if you accept the rate within the document, you
know, within this section.
Q. The rate in sect