Post by ADP Elite Link Ltd

A Witness Statement Contains a "No Loss" Position and a "Loss" Position? Dual Ledgers: One Bundle, Two Financial Narratives A striking feature of this case is that: Section 4 (Costs Known) and Section 20 (The £278,000 Loss Narrative) both appear within the same witness statement bundle and were relied upon in the same proceedings. Yet they present materially different financial positions. #Witnessstatement: "On 22 September Eight2O PM emailed HR, Senior HR and myself evidence on the costs incurred to date on both the Essendon and Dorchester projects that Victim had been involved with." The witness continued: "As can be seen, the estimated budget for Essendon was just £35,000 and the costs incurred to date were £172,000." And further: "The Dorchester project had also been forecast at £35,000 and again costs on that project were £176,000 to date." The witness then relied upon the Project Manager's conclusion: "We are currently £278,000 over our original budgets, which I firmly believe is primarily attributable to Victim's involvement in these schemes." 🟩 Section 4 – Costs Known (Bundle 1, Pages 269–273) Contemporaneous project records during live delivery Essendon SPS: £127,922.88 Dorchester STW: £107,670.53 Combined recorded costs: £235,593.41 Described as the costs known during project delivery 🟥 Section 20 – Loss Narrative (Bundle 1, Pages 462–467) Figures applied retrospectively approximately 11 months later Approximately 46 cost lines altered Retrospective budget assumptions of around £35,000 per project Essendon SPS: £172,000 Dorchester STW: £176,441.43 Alleged losses exceeding £278,000 Total financial exposure advanced at more than £348,000 This section presents a materially different financial narrative from the contemporaneous project records. Both versions were: Included within the same witness statement. Contained in the same evidential bundle. Available to all parties in the proceedings. Separated by approximately 197 pages. The central question is therefore a straightforward one: How can a single evidential framework contain two materially different financial histories for the same projects without a transparent reconciliation explaining how one became the other?