278
Date:
Time:
Reporter:
1
18.12.86
9
-
PMS
9.50 am
MR CHEONG:
Appendix 4 ?
1
2
23
4
5
MR MOTTRAM:
Oh, I beg your pardon. I am sorry.
That's
me, I can't count. It is Appendix 5. I beg your pardon. Appendix
3.
6
7
MR CHEONG:
Appendix 3:
8
9
MR MOTTRAM:
10
Principal Government
Yes. This was a letter from us to the
Architect at the time.
1
1
11
12
MR CHEONG:
Which paragraph are you reading from?
1
1
13
1
14
MR MOTTRAM:
The last paragraph of page 1.
1
15
16
MR CHEONG:
17
18
Yes, I have read through that but it's in my view at this stage anyway not totally relevant to the line. of questioning I would like to get some facts from.
1
1
1
1
19
3
MR MOTTRAM:
20
Okay.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
MR BURDETT:
In relation to the first part of your question, may I also direct your attention to Appendix 1 which,
as you will see, is a letter from the Public Works Department to
the contractors and this is written at a time when faults and
problems with the concreting had become completely obvious to everyone and the Government is saying there at page 2 under "Responsibility" that well, let me read it out, Sir [reads]:
"The Government Structural Engineer has stated that the original design of this basement, relying on water- proof concrete construction without tanking, could have produced a watertight basement if properly and
carefully executed with the materials specified."
MR CHEONG:
Yes, I don't doubt that. That is why I would like to ask the consultant's representative whether it could