I can take you to 6 if you want to see that. Now, do you have any understanding what those plans are?---I do.
There's a set of plans of 25 October which detail a much larger house than the original residence?---That's correct, and you've already pointed out those differences in area.
These are the DA plans we're talking of?---And I've done the calculation on the differences from the March 1998 plans to the July 1999 plans. These are essentially the July 1999 plans, first amended on 9 September, second amended on 25 October. There they are, one, two, three.
Yes, and it's the same area?---Substantially different to the original design of the house. That statement is correct.
Sorry, that was entirely my fault. I switched off a bit then. The DA plans - we will talk about those - they're the August 99 plans?---They are the July 1990 (sic) plans submitted on 4 August 1999, I think.
They're the DA plans. We all know what they are?---And they were amended on the 9th of the 9th and amended once again on the 25th of the 10th, showing extra work each time they are amended.
Yes, it didn't detail a much larger house. The size of the house didn't change after the DA plans, did it?
McGOWAN, MR: That's not what paragraph 7.4 says, 'The original residence'?---No, that's correct.
DONALDSON, MR: The original, okay. I'm grateful to my friend.
So 25 October, they're no different in size or the house depicted in the 25 October 99 plans are no different in size to the DA plans?---Well, I can confirm that to you if I look at the drawing.
Is the answer 'Yes'?---Well, I can tell you that if - I've got three sets of plans there all done after July 1999.
But you looked at these transparencies. It's a simple question. It's the same-size house. It never got any bigger after the DA plans?---I think the areas are slightly different and I pointed that out in the schedule.
It was within half a metre, wasn't it?---Some dimensions are different.
All right. So that's the house we're talking about?---If we're talking about the second design, which are the plans that were submitted for the development approval, they are different from the original design done in 1998.
Thank you. In November 98 they're much bigger. I'm happy to call them 'bigger.' Happy with that?---Thank you.
But 25 October 99 plans deal with the same dimensioned house as the DA plans with this slight change of half a square metre or whatever it is. Do you accept that?---Yes.
What this says is - 7.4 - you 'prepared a new set of sketch plans on 25 October 99 drawn in accordance with their ongoing amended instructions; detailed a much larger house than the original residence.' Just pausing there - - -?---That's correct.
- - - that's either March 98 or November 98?---Yes.
It doesn't matter - 'and comprised a substantial and material departure from the scope of the brief pleaded in 6 hereof.' If you want to turn back a page you will see what 6 is. That's what you were told in March 98. Okay?---Yes.
I'm just trying to be fair to you, Mr Doepel, so that's what that's about?---Yes.
Which Mr Doepel, on behalf of the defendant, told the plaintiffs and the first plaintiff, as property developer, knew would increase the cost of the residence substantially.' Now, when did you tell Mr Hodgkinson that?---Well, as far as the house itself is concerned, I had confirmed on 22 July that that house plan was within the budget, and that was $394,350. I didn't actually confirm that precise figure but I did confirm that it was within that budget of 390 to 400. So what this refers to, if the house price budget is the same, it must refer to the other changes that were made on 25 October drawing on the instructions of Mr Hodgkinson which would cost, you know, a considerable amount of money.
Your plea is that a new set of plans were prepared and dated October 99?---Yes.
- - - for a house in exactly the same dimensions as the DA plans. Yes?---Basically.
That was bigger or a much larger house than the March 98 one?---Yes.
So that's what we're comparing. We're comparing October 99 to March 98. Yes?---Yes.
It comprised a substantial and material departure from the brief that you were given in March 98.' That's what you say. Yes?---Yes.
And you say that you told the plaintiffs that that would increase the cost of the residence substantially?---If we're referring to the October plans, yes. The changes on the 25 October plans would have increased the cost substantially.
Why?---Because there was a massive retaining wall at the rear of the property which is depicted on the 25 October plans which would have cost a considerable amount of money which was never in the brief. It was never part of the costs; it was never part of the works.
But wasn't fencing, on your evidence, always excluded from the budget?---The whole reason for 25 October plans was to show those changes and those plans had to be resubmitted back to the City of Nedlands for a development approval and that's those plans on the end. That's the only change in those plans from the plans of the 9th of the 9th.
That isn't - sorry?---And the plans of the 9th of the 9th were also submitted to the City of Nedlands. In fact, there were three sets of plans submitted to the City of Nedlands, one set on 4 August, one set on the 9th of the 9th and a further set on 25 October, each one depicting additional work to the scope on the plans in - you can't just build things without approval so those three sets of plans show additional work that had to be approved by the council before it could be built.
Didn't it work like this: there were the DA plans that were submitted?---Yes.
There were conditions imposed?---Yes.
- - - which required a tree of a particular height?---That was the 9th of the 9th plans.
That's right?---They had to be relodged back with the council?
Yes, so they had nothing to do with the Hodgkinsons. You say that they did but in fact they were as a result of conditions imposed on the development approval by the council?---That's correct.
So that's them, and the 25 October plans dealt with the retaining wall, didn't they?---That defined the new wall of the rear of the property which Mr Hodgkinson wanted raised to above the level of the swimming pool and that wall was put in by Landcorp so we had to get Landcorp's approval and also the City of Nedlands.
So the 25 October plans?---And that's the only difference in those plans, to my recollection, to the ones of the 9th of the 9th.
Just increase the height of the wall?---Substantial increase.
Yes, but you needed a separate development approval to increase the wall?---And also Landcorp approval.
Yes, because they owned the adjoining land?---It was a condition of the purchase that the existing boundary fences that Landcorp had put in could not be altered, changed without their approval. That's why we needed their approval, as well as the City of Nedlands.
So you needed approval from Landcorp as a condition of that; you needed a separate DA from the council for the fence?---That's right.
So it is your evidence that you said to Mr Hodgkinson that that change to the fence would increase the cost of the residence substantially?---Well, the wording in the pleadings isn't precisely correct the way it has been put.
Did you ever have a conversation with Mr Hodgkinson about an increase in the cost or an increase in the budget from 22 July through to October 1999?---In regard to the fence on the 25 October plans, yes, and he understood that if you add height to a fence, that's going to cost extra money, but with the actual house, as that hadn't changed, that was still within the budget.
So in relation to the residence it didn't change at all?---No.
SIMMONDS J: Can I clarify that answer, Mr Doepel? Are you saying that so far as the residence budget is concerned, the 390 to 400 envelope had not changed in your view between 22 July 99 through to and including 25 October 99?---For the actual house, yes.
For the actual house?---Yes."