Post by ADP Elite Link Ltd

Final Difficulty The central issue is not merely accounting inconsistency. It is chronological impossibility. Because if: the costs were already known in SECTION 4, and the catastrophic loss only emerges later in SECTION 20 through rewritten spreadsheets and reconstructed budgets, then the chronology itself becomes the problem. At that point, Counsel is no longer simply writing a timeline of events. Counsel is attempting to reconcile two incompatible financial realities within the same AMP6 infrastructure projects at different points in time. In practical terms, this means the same projects are being described in two mutually conflicting ways: one where the costs were already known and recorded, and another where those same projects later appear as having suffered a catastrophic loss based on revised and backdated financial data. For those unfamiliar with construction accounting or litigation disclosure, the issue can be stated simply: both versions cannot realistically describe the same project history at the same time. From: Project Manager 11:08 To: HR Representative Cc: HR Business Partner; Senior HR Manager; Line Manager Date: 22 September 2016 Subject: Cost to Date – Essendon & Dorchester Importance: High “As requested, Essendon original budget of £35k. Current cost to date is £172k and still growing, with the Construction Manager’s continued involvement in what is meant to be a damage-limitation exercise. His cost over the period on Essendon is £54k alone, far exceeding the original budget on his own accord. Look how out of kilter it is with other staff booking to the scheme disastrous and embarrassing, achieving precisely nothing. Dorchester original budget of £35k as well. Current cost £176k and still growing. His cost over the period on Dorchester is £25k, pretty much using up almost all the original budget for his time alone. So we’re currently £278k over our original budgets, which I firmly believe is primarily attributable to the Construction Manager’s involvement. This puts any Employee Tribunal and legal fees into perspective and is the reason, in my opinion, we cannot delay taking action against KJ any longer.” Kind regards, PM, Eight2O Joint Venture / Alliance