DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI KUALA LUMPUR

DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA

(BAHAGIAN SIVIL)

GUAMAN NO.: WA-22NCVC-120-03/2017

ANTARA

FANUC SDN BHD

(NO. SYARIKAT: 165601-T) … PLAINTIF
DAN

1. ADENLAND (CHERAS) SDN BHD

(NO. SYARIKAT: 895197-H)

2. PRESTASI INFRA BINA SDN BHD

(NO. SYARIKAT: 989966-M) … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN

FIRST DEFENDANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT

Name: Ir. Tan Ah Chai

NRIC No.: 500730-06-5115
Address: No. 55-3, Jalan 5/76B, Desa Pandan, 55100 Kuala Lumpur

Q1: Please state your full name, identification card number and address.

A1: My name is Tan Ah Chai. My identification card number is 500730-06-5115 and my

address is at No. 55-3, Jalan 5/76B, Desa Pandan, 55100 Kuala Lumpur.

Q2: What is your occupation?

A2: I am a practicing professional civil engineer.

Q3: Can you please tell this Honourable Court your qualifications?

A3: I have a Bachelor’s degree in Engineering from University of Malaya (Hon). I graduated
in 1975. I am a Registered Professional Engineer with the Board of Engineers Malaysia.

Q4: What is your working experience?

A4: I joined PWD (JKR) after graduation in 1975 and took optional retirement in mid 1993.
My last posting was as Assistant Director for building design in Home Affairs Division in
JKR Malaysia’s Headquarters in Kuala Lumpur.

Q5: What did you do after that?

A5: Between 1993 and 1997 I was practicing as a consultant in a firm of consultancy with 3
others in Kuala Lumpur specializing in civil, structural and geotechnical engineering.

Q6: Are you still with the same firm of consultancy now?

A6: No. I started my own consultancy firm in 1997 and operate the same to date.

Q7: What is your experience as a consultant?

A7: As a practicing consultant, among the works carried out were as the independent check
consultant to the UIA project in Gombak (for the civil and structural work). I have been
an independent check consultant in a number of other major projects in Malaysia.

2
Q8: Have you given evidence in Court?

A8: Yes.

Q9: Have you given evidence in any quasi legal proceedings?

A9: Yes, I have given evidence as an expert in a number of arbitration proceedings.

Q10: Ir. Tan, please state to the court what is your relationship with the First Defendant,
Adenland (Cheras) Sdn Bhd (“Adenland”)?

A10: Adenland engaged Perunding TAC to propose a new retaining wall for slope protection at
Jalan Kemacahaya, Cheras and to reinstate the land as per the soil profile in 2012. We
have prepared design calculation and drawings for the additional retaining wall.

Q11: Please refer to page 193-210 in Bundle B1, what is this document?

A11: This is the retaining wall design report prepared by us. Basically, the analysis of the basic
requirements of retaining wall is carried out using TEDDS software from TEKLA.

The micro piles will take the vertical load, sliding force through raked micro piles on the
front row and overturning moment by the resisting moment couple from the pile reaction
forces.

This is to avoid applying additional lateral force on the existing retaining wall.

3
 Under item 1 in page 1 of the report, it is clearly indicated the capacity of the micro-pile
is derived from friction in the socketed length of 2 meters and the adopted allowable
friction is 500kn/m². This adopted value is for slightly weathered granite. No friction in
soil is used and no end bearing in rock is used.

The adopted design wall height is 4.5 meter.

Q12: What happened to the proposed construction of the additional retaining wall?

A12: Fanuc Sdn Bhd engaged JTK Consult Sdn Bhd to review our design calculations and
drawings.

Q13: Please refer page 211-240 in the plaintiff’s Bundle of Documents (Volume 1), is this the
review by JTK Consult Sdn Bhd that you mentioned just now?

A13: Yes, we have some comments on the report by JTK Consult Sdn Bhd..

Q14: Can you please inform Court what is your comments?

A14: This is our comments on the review report by JTK Consult Sdn Bhd:-

a) Section 2.0 of the report: we do not agree that we combined deep foundation design
with shallow foundation. The TEDDS software is only use to determine the vertical load
on the retaining wall, the sliding force and the overturning moment on the wall. All these
will be taken by the micro piles.

Micro piles will be installed first then the wall base and the wall stem and follow by other
works. There is no pile assisted footing concept in carrying out the design.

4
The design is sound and will perform accordingly.

b) For global stability, since granite bed rock is considered shallow and it will not be the
critical factor in wall cost. The global stability analysis will be carried out after detail soil
investigation and survey work done when the concept of slope protection is agreeable to
both parties.

The global stability check carried out by JTK on our design indicates that the (Factor Of
Safety) F.O.S is 1.451. This complies to requirement of Geotechnical Manual For Slopes
of Hong Kong where the allowable F.O.S limit is 1.4.

c) Only the allowable friction of rock socket is used in our design and is based on our
experience of similar rock and this is clearly stated in our report.

d) The wall height is estimated based on existing soil profile against soil profile in 2012.
The 4.5 meter design height will be good enough for costing purpose as the wall height
varies along the road.

e) The micro pile capacity calculation is clearly indicated in our report together with the
indication of socketed length and assumed ultimate friction in the socketed length.

f) For ground water pressure, we have no data on the groundwater level, will check this in
our final design.

g) The design carried using TEDDS is for costing, there may be some errors but it will
have minor or no impact on the costing.

h) We feel that complying to Hong Kong Geo Office’s standard of F.O.S. of 1.4 in global
stability is sufficient and there is no need to increase the micro pile size.

5
i) The micro pile will not buckle in the top 2 to 3 meters basing on experience in design
of piles. The micro pile in this case is in soil and not in cavity or in air. The buckling load
is usually much higher than the design pile capacity.

On the conclusion and recommendations of the review report by JTK our comments are
as follows:

a) As stated before, the retaining wall design carried out by us is preliminary design for
costing purposes.

b) We do not agree that we have combine design approach for deep foundation with
shallow foundation. The base is not assigned any load.

c) At the time of preparation of the design of the retaining wall, only soil information
available is in the form of mackintosh probes. Survey information of the site cannot be
done as access will not be allowed and decision is based on site visual inspection and
preconstruction levels. No global stability analysis is carried out but based on the shallow
bed rock it will not be critical to the costing. As for lateral forces on the piles, it is clearly
stated that all lateral forces will be taken by raked micro piles on the front row with
smaller spacing.

d) The assumed ultimate friction value of 1000kn/m² for slightly weathered granite is
reasonable. The allowable friction value of 500kn/m² is for the socket length only and
capacity of the micro pile is calculated based on this socketed length only. This is clearly
indicated in our report. We do not understand why JTK insists that we use this allowable
value throughout the length of the micro pile.

e) We are informed by the client that the levels to be restored should be based on that of
preconstruction levels of 2012.

6
Q15: Please refer to page 23 in the plaintiff’s Bundle of Documents (Volume 2), is this the
preliminary concept plan of Taman Roberto for Lot 1168 and Lot 1169. What is your
observation?

A15: By referring to the said preliminary concept plan, the original level at the border of the
Plaintiff’s Land is between 70m to 110m. The Plaintiff planned to reduce the level at the
upper-right corner at the border of Plaintiff’s Land to 93m.

By referring to the Land Survey in year 2014 [page 89 of the Common Bundle of
Document], the height of the purported excavated area is between 104.38m to 112.40m.
Therefore, there is no such need to reinstate the purported excavated area since the
Plaintiff planned to reduce the height at the border of their Land. So, reinstatement of the
Plaintiff’s Land will be redundant for the Plaintiff’s future development.

Q16: Please refer to page 17-19 in the First Defendant’s Bundle of Documents (3), what is this
document?

A16: This is the drawings prepared by me showing the proposed level by Plaintiff at Section 1-
1 and Section 2-2 in the preliminary concept plan for Taman Roberto. It shows that any
construction of new retaining wall will be redundant for the Plaintiff’s future
development. The Plaintiff needs to reduce the slope and remove the retaining wall as the
retaining wall will be higher than the proposed level.

Alternatively, the Plaintiff needs to build additional 6m retaining wall at Section 1-1 and
9m retaining wall at Section 2-2 within their land if the excavated area is reinstated. In
this case, there will be 3 retaining walls:- the existing retaining wall, the proposed
retaining wall to reinstate the land and the third retaining wall to be built by the Plaintiff
within their land.

7
Q17: Mr. Tan, can you comment on the longitudinal sections in Drawing No.
JTK/1354/RT/003 by JTK Consult SdnBhd, which is in reference to sections drawn on
2008 survey drawing in Bundle B, page 67?

A17: I have gone through the sections in the above stated drawing, that is Section A-A, Section
B-B, Section C-C and Section D-D.

Q18: What is your comment?

A18: Section A-A has mistakes and the changes in the 2008 profile is in red dotted lines. The
changes in the profile for Section A-A will result in the retaining wall being one (1) meter
shorter from the height of 6.4 meters as indicated in the section. For Section B-B, there
are also mistakes and the changes and the changes in the 2008 profile is in red dotted
line; the 2008 profile is lower at the slope area on the front.

Section C-C and Section D-D is OK.

Dated .

………………………………….….
Name : Tan Ah Chai
NRIC number : 500730-06-5115

First Defendant’s Witness Statement is filed by Messrs Armiy Rais, solicitors for the
First Defendant, which has the address at No. 1-2B, 1st Floor, Jalan PJU 8/3A, Damansara
Perdana, 47820 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan.
(Tel. No.: 03-7726 3471, Fax No.: 03-7726 2471)
(Ref. No.: YZJ/L8(1703)/ADENLAND)