Day 35

(1) Bank St Petersburg PJSC (2) Alexander Savelyev v (1) Vitaly Arkhangelsky (2) Julia Arkhangelskaya (3) Oslo Marine Group Ports
LLC

Day 35

April 8, 2016

Opus 2 International — Official Court Reporters

Phone: +44 (0)20 3008 5900

Email: transcripts@opus2.com
Website: http://www.opus2.com

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 Friday, 8 April 2016 1 environment, when we first learnt of those photographs.
2 (9.30 am) 2 So they were not in my clients’ possession until then.
3 Housekeeping 3 We have then taken steps to have them uploaded to
4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. 4 Magnum, and we have furnished hard copies. I haven’t
5 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship. Before I call 5 read the photographs, I haven’t seen them. I have just
6 Mrs Simonova, just very briefly, firstly, has 6 literally been passed a pack this morning, because
7 your Lordship seen the e-mail I sent to your clerk this 7 having learnt that Mr Millard had taken some further
8 morning? 8 photographs that he then caused to be retrieved from his
9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, about hearing? 9 own records, we have uploaded them onto Magnum. So
10 MR STROILOV: Yes. I do now, my Lord, think it has been 10 there is nothing sinister or untoward; there is no
11 sorted out, and RPC and Magnum have very commendably 11 breach of disclosure obligation. That is the long and
12 arranged for the transcript to be before Mrs Simonova, 12 short of it.
13 so hopefully it won’t cause any significant difficulty, 13 So, we don’t mind if your Lordship wants to rule on
14 but I just wanted your Lordship to be aware of the 14 it, but that’s what this material is: it is the further
15 situation. 15 photographs that Mr Millard took when he made a site
16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, thank you. 16 inspection, which he refers to in his first report in
17 MR STROILOV: Secondly, I think your Lordship should know 17 2014, in respect of which he exhibits some, but not all,
18 that literally a minute before the start, we have had 18 of the photographs.
19 disclosed a number of photographs of Western Terminal, 19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Are they the inside of
20 said to be taken by Mr Millard, and not exhibited to his 20 Western Terminal? My understanding is that Ms Simonova
21 report or disclosed previously. I understand my learned 21 had lesser access than did Mr Millard. That may be
22 friend wants to put them to Mrs Simonova. I don’t think 22 wrong.
23 we need to argue about this now, but I reserve all the 23 MR LORD: They are inside, but obviously he does exhibit
24 defendants’ rights in connection with non disclosure of 24 some, I think, from inside anyway.
25 these photographs previously. 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Ms Simonova may tell me she didn’t get
1 3
1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t know when the photographs were 1 to go inside. Is that right? I don’t know.
2 taken. 2 MR LORD: I don’t think Ms Simonova did go inside, I think
3 MR STROILOV: I am told they were taken some time ago, at 3 that’s right.
4 the time Mr Millard was preparing that report. So, in 4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: She was not allowed to go inside?
5 my submission, they obviously should have been disclosed 5 MR LORD: I’m not sure, my Lord. I am not sure about that.
6 then and appended to the report; but I would suggest 6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: There is something uneasy-making about
7 they can be used in cross-examination. 7 this.
8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You don’t object to them being shown 8 MR LORD: Then I am happy not to put them to the witness.
9 to Ms Simonova? 9 I am happy to keep them out of account. It is just that
10 MR STROILOV: Well, pragmatically I don’t, but that should 10 the expert indicated yesterday that he had taken some
11 not be taken as agreement to their admissibility or 11 additional photographs.
12 anything of that kind. I just don’t want to argue this 12 In those circumstances, I raise the question of what
13 out now, because it may be that nothing turns on it. 13 we were meant to do, really. We would have thought it
14 If I have to decide now, I do object to them. 14 is better to put the photographs in before the court.
15 Indeed, they should have been disclosed from the start 15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: There may have been
16 if they are relied on. If they haven’t been disclosed, 16 a misunderstanding. It may be that you were simply
17 the consequence and the sanction is they cannot be 17 complying with what you perceived to be correctly your
18 relied on. There is absolutely no justification for 18 disclosure obligations, once they came into your
19 them being disclosed five minutes ago, rather than at 19 possession or control. I don’t know whether they were
20 the time Mr Millard’s report was served. 20 in your control before then or not. I don’t know what
21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. I will ask Mr Lord 21 the position is with regard to photographs taken by
22 briefly. Why weren’t they disclosed? 22 an expert witness in the course of his commission.
23 MR LORD: My Lord, we learnt of the fact that Mr Millard had 23 I would have thought they were within your control, but
24 taken more photographs than the ten or so he exhibited 24 there we are. That may have been the reason for your
25 to his first report yesterday in a privileged 25 disclosure; another may have been to give him warning
2 4
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 that you intended to put the documents to the witness.

2 I am not sure which it is. Which is it?

3 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord. Those photographs became

4 available, and it seemed to me that in those

5 circumstances, that material should be made available

6 because Mr Millard — I don’t want to go into the

7 privileged exchanges we had.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m not asking you to do that —

9 MR LORD: Mr Millard, when asked about what he understood to

10 be the Western Terminal condition, will want to refer to

11 his inspection, and he has further photographic evidence

12 of that inspection. So, having learnt of it yesterday

13 we could, I suppose, just have kept quiet about it, but

14 we thought that the best thing was just to put these

15 photographs before the court in this way.

16 I haven’t actually seen the photographs before

17 Mr Stroilov. I haven’t seen them and I am very happy

18 for them to be kept out of account.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m sorry, I asked two questions. The

20 first is, did you provide these photographs this

21 morning, or whenever it was, to Mr Stroilov, simply in

22 discharge of your obligations of disclosure, or with

23 a view to questioning this witness, Ms Simonova, about

24 them?

25 MR LORD: In discharge of the first, and I hadn’t looked at

1 disclosed, so I am not questioning that. If you regret

2 that, you regret doing your duty. That’s a completely

3 different matter.

4 MR LORD: No, my Lord.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I will not rule on this now, bearing

6 in mind that it doesn’t appear to me, Mr Stroilov, that

7 Mr Lord presently intends to put the pictures, the

8 photographs, to the witness. But when there comes

9 an appropriate moment for you to have a look at them and

10 for him to consider his position further, then if either

11 or both of you wish to take some time to see whether

12 they are or aren’t matters which cause Mr Lord to put

13 them to the witness in pursuit of some question of his,

14 or you to need some time with the witness to see whether

15 they in any way affect her report, I shall make that

16 available.

17 MR STROILOV: I am grateful, my Lord.

18 Finally, before calling Mrs Simonova, may

19 I introduce Mr Paul Thomas, who is a partner of

20 Ms Simonova at Thomas & Simonova, so he has kindly

21 agreed to sit behind me and help me on re-examination in

22 due course. So it is not proposed, obviously, that he

23 will speak or play any other role, just so that

24 your Lordship knows.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: He assisted her in the compilation of

5 7
1 the photographs and therefore had not taken a view on 1 her report, or simply he knows about these sort of
2 the second. 2 things and will be able to assist?
3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. Second, is it a relevant — or 3 MR STROILOV: I understand he knows Mrs Simonova’s report.
4 what is the answer to the question which arises as to 4 He is not, obviously, a co-author in any sense, but he
5 whether photographs taken by an expert in respect of 5 knows —
6 the matters which he is commissioned to report on, are 6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: He is within the firm; he is
7 they or aren’t they within your possession or control? 7 a partner, or whatever it is. He is as experienced as
8 MR LORD: My Lord, I will check on that, but my … they are 8 she is and he knows what she said and he is therefore in
9 probably akin to an expert’s own notes and notebooks and 9 a position to help you?
10 that sort of thing. Experts come to court with their 10 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord, that’s right, yes.
11 briefcases and they produce further materials that they 11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.
12 gathered up when they were doing their report. I think 12 MR STROILOV: May I now call Mrs Simonova?
13 Mr Bromley-Martin did that. I think it often happens 13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.
14 that an expert refers to further materials. So the 14 MR STROILOV: May Mrs Simonova be sworn in, please.
15 question was, having learned of those materials 15 MS LUDMILA SIMONOVA (Affirmed)
16 yesterday, what we were to do about it. 16 (All questions and answers given in English with the
17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m not complaining; in fact I am 17 assistance of interpreters where indicated)
18 complimenting you on disclosure. The question is, what 18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Ms Simonova, I hesitate to ask this,
19 is to be done with them. 19 but are you sufficiently confident of your knowledge of
20 MR LORD: My Lord, I make it quite clear: there is no 20 English that you fully understand the content of your
21 intention of getting any unfair advantage. I actually 21 affirmation and you do not think it necessary to have it
22 regret even instructing they should be copied and served 22 read to you in Russian and then for you to repeat it in
23 and uploaded, because I don’t need to put them to 23 Russian?
24 the witness. 24 A. No, no, I understand completely the words of, and my
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It is your duty if they were to be 25 English is good enough. It’s my third language, but
6 8
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 I could understand really well. The reason I am keeping 1 professional opinion on the matters referred in them?
2 the headset is because I want just to make sure that the 2 A. It is, my Lord.
3 questions from the lawyers and barristers will be 3 Q. And do you want these three reports to stand as your
4 absolutely clear, and so I could double-check the 4 evidence in these proceedings?
5 meaning, and also read on the screen, so that’s why I am 5 A. Yes.
6 doing this. 6 MR STROILOV: Will you please stay there. Thank you.
7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Obviously your oath or affirmation is 7 MR LORD: My Lord, there is the joint statement. I hesitate
8 an important matter to me. As long as you are clear 8 to interrupt.
9 that that is fully understood by you, I am content to 9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I was wondering about that.
10 accept your assurance on that behalf. 10 MR LORD: It’s at {E8/29/1}. I wonder, out of completeness,
11 Please sit down if you would prefer. I hope you 11 probably that should …
12 have some water. I understand that arrangements have 12 MR STROILOV: I am grateful, and I do apologise.
13 been made to ensure that you can hear and read entirely 13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Do you want to confirm that?
14 clearly, but if at any time those arrangements fail and 14 MR STROILOV: Yes, I beg your pardon.
15 you are not satisfied that you have heard correctly, you 15 What you see on the screen — I do apologise,
16 must let me know. 16 Ms Simonova. What you see on the screen also seems to
17 A. Okay. 17 be the front page of the joint statement you made with
18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you. 18 Mr Millard; is that right?
19 Examination-in-chief by MR STROILOV 19 A. Yes, it is.
20 MR STROILOV: Now, Mrs Simonova, can you please be shown 20 Q. And if we could now scroll down to the last page,
21 {E8/26/1}. Does this look like the front page of 21 I think we can see the signatures respectively of
22 the first of your reports prepared? 22 Mr Millard and yourself. {E8/29/5}
23 A. Yes, that’s exactly what it is. 23 A. Yes, it is.
24 Q. And if we could now scroll down to {E8/26/102}. So this 24 Q. And so do you confirm that the opinions attributed to
25 seems to be your signature with the date of 25 you in this joint statement also represent your true and
9 11

1 10 July 2015; is that, indeed, your signature —

2 A. Yes, it is.

3 Q. — under that report.

4 Now, if you could please now be shown {E8/28/1}.

5 That seems to be the front page of your supplemental

6 report prepared for these proceedings; is that so?

7 A. Yes, it is.

8 Q. And if we could please now scroll down to {E8/28/28}, is

9 this your signature, Mrs Simonova?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And the seal we can see there is your seal, as

12 I understand?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. As a member of the American Society of Appraisers?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And if you could now be shown {E8/27/1}. That seems to

17 be the front page of your third report prepared for

18 these proceedings in relation to the valuation of

19 Western Terminal assets; is that so?

20 A. Yes, it is.

21 Q. If we could now scroll down to {E8/27/48}, that seems to

22 be your signature under that report, is it not?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Can you confirm to your Lordship on oath today that

25 these three reports represent your full and true

1 full professional opinion on the relevant matters?

2 A. Yes, my Lord.

3 Q. And do you want this joint statement also to form part

4 of the evidence in these proceedings?

5 A. Yes.

6 MR STROILOV: I’m grateful. Thank you very much.

7 Cross-examination by MR LORD

8 MR LORD: Ms Simonova, I will try and ask the questions as

9 clearly as I can. If there is any problem with any of

10 the questions, do please say and I will try to

11 reformulate them.

12 Ms Simonova, the defendants have informed the court

13 that you are currently acting in what they call

14 a pro bono way; is that right?

15 A. (Interpreted) Yes, that’s right.

16 A. Oh, this is true. I am confused between the languages.

17 Yes, this is absolutely true.

18 Q. Sorry, before I ask about that, can I just clear up the

19 language issue. Sorry, Ms Simonova. Could you have the

20 hard copies of your reports, please, in front of you?

21 There should be a file of your reports for ease of

22 reference, and a file of Mr Millard’s reports, which we

23 have prepared so you can refer to them easily, and there

24 should be a file for the judge as well.

25 If you could be shown {E8/26/7}, please.

10 12
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 My Lord, I have caused to be made up, I hope, one 1 timetabling of this, potentially. I will do the best
2 volume with Ms Simonova’s reports and one with 2 I can.
3 Mr Millard’s, both of which should be available for your 3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay. I think counsel is not
4 Lordship and Mr Stroilov as well, and the witness, just 4 objecting to this in any substantive way, but simply
5 for ease of reference, because there may well be several 5 logistically that, because you will hear the English
6 occasions when it is easier to look at what each expert 6 question and then some time commendably soon afterwards
7 witness has said. 7 you will hear the Russian, the question he is posing,
8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see, so to compare. 8 really, is are you going to be answering the English in
9 MR LORD: It is just designed to take out the three reports 9 real time, or waiting for the Russian before you answer,
10 from each expert, put them in their own file, so there 10 or might there be a bit of a clash between the two,
11 is a Simonova and a Millard file, and one could have 11 according to whether the question is one which you
12 them both open on the witness box or the bench. 12 immediately understand or not. I think that’s really
13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you. 13 what you are getting at, and of course if you wait for
14 MR LORD: Ms Simonova, if you please look at page 7 of your 14 the Russian, then although the translators are
15 first report, {E8/26/7} you set out your expert 15 miraculously quick, it does take longer, inevitably.
16 qualifications, and you say you are a senior accredited 16 Which would you prefer to do? I take it, really,
17 appraiser of the American Society of Appraisers. It is 17 that you need to hear the Russian first, in which case
18 really the last sentence I wanted to ask you about. You 18 you had better pause until the Russian has ended; is
19 say: 19 that right?
20 «I have advanced language skills in Russian, 20 A. I would prefer to listen the Russian translation of
21 Ukrainian and English.» 21 the question, and then I will prefer to answer in
22 I am sure that is right. Is that right? 22 English.
23 A. (Interpreted) Yes. 23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. All right. Are you content
24 A. Yes. 24 with that, Mr Lord?
25 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord — sorry, Ms Simonova — I had 25 MR LORD: My Lord, yes.
13 15
1 understood I was going to be cross-examining in English. 1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It may affect your timetable?
2 I am not sure whether the witness is getting her 2 MR LORD: It does, my Lord. Your Lordship will recollect
3 evidence in — how this is going to unfold. I think she 3 that I said it is a full day and I have tried to pare
4 may be having the Russian audio feed. I am not sure if 4 things down. I am not in any way criticising the
5 that’s right or not, and that will certainly affect the 5 witness. She must have it in the way that is fairest to
6 timing, if nothing else, I am afraid. 6 her, I completely accept that, but I am going to have to
7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I have been unclear too. My 7 slightly reprogramme how long I take to pose the
8 understanding, if I may check it with Ms Simonova, is 8 question and how long I wait and potentially how
9 that for two reasons, of which the first is predominant, 9 I formulate some of them to make sure they are as clear
10 she is answering your questions in English, but having 10 as can be. Your Lordship knows there is always
11 heard a Russian feed of your questions in English. The 11 a potential slowing down when you have to move between
12 two reasons, as I understand it, are to make quite sure, 12 languages.
13 since English is her third language, that she fully 13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: There is. I can’t see any cure for
14 appreciates the meaning of your questions, and the 14 that.
15 second is because I understand that the speakers enable 15 MR LORD: No, I accept that, my Lord. I am not objecting,
16 her to be more sure that she can hear them, given some 16 I just have to recalibrate, slightly. But we will see
17 hearing difficulties. That is my understanding of 17 how we go. If your Lordship is content —
18 the position. Is that agreeable to you? 18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The only thing I would ask you is,
19 MR LORD: My Lord, that effectively turns it into 19 even if you know the question in English and know the
20 a sequential translation. If the witness will 20 answer you know you wish to give in English, I think you
21 potentially wait, and subject to — and depending on 21 will have to wait and pause for the Russian answer
22 what the answer comes back in, I may have to put the 22 because otherwise we will have a fight between the two
23 headset back on. If she is going to hear me in English 23 streams. I think that is a logistical complexity.
24 with a slight delay into Russian, and then answers in 24 MR LORD: Thank you, my Lord.
25 Russian, that is obviously going to affect the 25 Sorry, Ms Simonova. I was asking you about whether
14 16
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 it is right that you were currently acting on what

2 Mr Stroilov as described as a pro bono basis?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. So should his Lordship take it, then, that there is no

5 arrangement at all between you or your firm in relation

6 to which you might be remunerated for the work you are

7 currently doing?

8 A. Yes, I will not be paid for this testimony.

9 Q. But what about for other help you have given on the

10 case. Have you been paid — is there an arrangement to

11 pay for other work you have done on the case?

12 A. For these previous reports?

13 Q. Yes.

14 A. Yes, that was done on a contract with Withers LLP.

15 Q. So there is no contingency arrangement whereby you might

16 be paid for the work you are doing, depending upon

17 certain outcomes?

18 A. Yes. That’s true.

19 Q. I think you mean there isn’t one; is that right?

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s true that there is no contingency

21 arrangement?

22 MR LORD: I formed the question badly.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is that right, Ms Simonova?

24 MR LORD: Ms Simonova, we are just going to clarify whether

25 or not you are confirming that there is or is not any

1 Q. And whereabouts in America do you operate from; roughly

2 whereabouts do you operate from?

3 A. In Washington DC.

4 Q. Washington. Do you have an office in Washington DC?

5 A. No. We have a townhouse where we live.

6 Q. And how much of your time would you say you spent in

7 America per year usually? Just roughly what proportion?

8 A. Maybe two or three months. Two or three months.

9 Q. Two or three months a year, and the rest of the time in

10 Ukraine?

11 A. Mostly. Mm hmm.

12 Q. In Kiev?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And on the LinkedIn profile, where it says «Current»,

15 Ireland USA Inc, what does that refer to? Why is there

16 Ireland and USA Inc there? Do you operate in Ireland as

17 well?

18 A. Why Ireland?

19 Q. I just want to establish, Ms Simonova; because you are

20 giving evidence about property valuation, I want to

21 establish where you spend most of your time, that is

22 all. It is not a personal question. I want the court

23 to understand geographically where you spend most of

24 your time. I don’t mind why you spend it there, I am

25 just trying to identify which locations you —

17 19

1 form of contingency arrangement whereby you or your firm

2 might be paid for work in relation to this litigation at

3 some point in the future.

4 A. No, there is no such agreement.

5 Q. How often do you act on a pro bono basis?

6 A. In my country I am working a lot pro bono, especially as

7 a member of my Ukrainian Society of Appraisers. So

8 that’s not unusual for me.

9 Q. I wonder if we could be shown {D221/3107/1}, please.

10 Ms Simonova, this is the public page of your LinkedIn

11 profile; do you recognise it?

12 A. Yes, I do.

13 Q. And you are described as CEO at Thomas & Simonova, and

14 then there are a number of different locations

15 identified. One is Ukraine. Did you live in Ukraine?

16 A. Mostly, but also in America.

17 Q. And is Mr Thomas based in America?

18 A. Are you asking personal questions?

19 Q. Sorry, I didn’t know. Sorry, Ms Simonova, I didn’t

20 know. I do apologise. I didn’t appreciate that

21 Mr Thomas was other than a professional partner of

22 yours. I do apologise.

23 A. He is my partner and my husband.

24 Q. I understand.

25 A. If you care about that.

1 A. IRE is the shortened «Industrial Real Estate», and it is

2 the name of the Ukrainian company, and the name of

3 the American company. We are like international —

4 several international companies. We have clients all

5 over the world.

6 Q. And if we could have the screen shifted to the left

7 a bit so we see the right-hand side, there is

8 a photograph, I think a photograph of a younger

9 Mr Christopher Coffin; can you see that?

10 A. Yes, there is Christopher Coffin.

11 Q. Is that the Christopher Coffin from Withers, who is

12 a partner at Withers?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And have you worked for Mr Coffin on cases other than

15 this case? Don’t tell me the particular case, but just

16 whether you have worked on other matters with Mr Coffin?

17 A. No, never. Never before.

18 Q. And have you worked with a Ms Meylanova before?

19 A. No, never.

20 Q. And did you have any prior connection with the

21 Arkhangelskys?

22 A. No, never.

23 Q. Or with Mr Stroilov?

24 A. No, never.

25 Q. Can I ask you, please, about your experience? You have

18 20
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 explained that you are based in Washington and Kiev.

2 Can his Lordship take it that you don’t have a base in

3 the Russian Federation?

4 A. There is no official office in the Russian Federation.

5 Q. You don’t, I think, in any of your reports, identify any

6 real estate you have valued in St Petersburg; is that

7 because you have never valued real estate in

8 St Petersburg until this case?

9 A. I didn’t appraise assets in St Petersburg, which is

10 irrelevant. Appraisers act according to international

11 valuation standards. They have — there are certain

12 procedures that appraisers has to take when they go to

13 market they didn’t work before. I have fully studied

14 the market of St Petersburg. I brought all the evidence

15 in my report, and so the fact that I never did appraisal

16 particularly in St Petersburg is irrelevant to this

17 appraisal work.

18 Q. Have you ever lived in Russia?

19 A. My mother lived in Russia.

20 Q. Have you ever lived in Russia?

21 A. I was visiting Russia a lot of time, but I was never

22 registered in Russia as a resident.

23 Q. And if you could please be shown {E8/27/5}, which is

24 a page from your Western Terminal report, you set out in

25 the middle of that page various trade related properties

1 A. This is one of the areas where I do work, and this is

2 very important direction, because this is the work that

3 has to be submitted to the international audits of the

4 Big Four, and so this is the most serious work. That’s

5 why it’s listed over here.

6 Q. And I think from your earlier answer, I think you take

7 the view that the IFRS have international standards to

8 apply, don’t they?

9 A. Of course. International financial statements are based

10 on and they apply to valuation, they are based on IFRS

11 international valuation standards that was used in this

12 assignment.

13 Q. And I think the implication of that answer you gave

14 earlier this morning was that you don’t consider it to

15 be important for the purpose of carrying out an IFRS

16 appraisal that the appraiser is based outside the

17 country where the particular assets are based; would

18 that be fair?

19 A. I considered that irrelevant.

20 Q. So would the fact that you have not ever lived in Russia

21 and you don’t operate in Russia, would those be reasons

22 why you would not really be in a position to compare

23 comparable Russian properties in this case?

24 A. No. That’s all irrelevant.

25 Q. I want to ask you, Ms Simonova, please, a little bit

21 23
1 that you say you valued; can you see that? 1 about the instructions you have in this case. I wonder
2 A. Mm hmm, yes. 2 if you could please be shown {E8/26.1/4}. You have
3 Q. Which you advance — 3 helpfully exhibited to your reports, Ms Simonova,
4 A. I see. 4 a number of different appendices, and at {E8/26.1/3},
5 Q. Which you advance as relevant to this case. Those are 5 you have set out the instructions from Withers to you on
6 all Ukrainian examples, aren’t they? 6 22 May 2015; can you see those?
7 A. Well, the Kerch now in Russia. Russian Federation 7 A. Yes.
8 seized the Crimean Peninsula. 8 Q. And if you would be kind enough, please, to go to
9 Q. Right, but subject to that change — well, prior to 9 page 4 — sorry, {E8/26.1/4}.
10 that, would it be fair to say that the examples you give 10 A. Page 4?
11 are all Ukrainian? In other words, they were not in 11 Q. Yes, {E8/26.1/4}.
12 Russia? 12 A. That’s page 2.
13 A. Yes, that’s true. 13 Q. Yes, that’s right, it’s page 2 of the report, but the
14 Q. And if we could go back to your LinkedIn profile, again, 14 Magnum reference is as I gave it. Just take your time,
15 please, at {D221/3107/1}, and if we could have the 15 Ms Simonova, to familiarise yourself with the documents.
16 middle section, please, you can see under «Experience», 16 Do take your time.
17 you are said to be the owner of IRE USA Inc, and then 17 A. Well, I’m worried about your having enough time to
18 CEO of Thomas & Simonova, January 2005 to the present. 18 investigate, really.
19 That’s 11 years and three months. Then it says: 19 Q. Don’t worry about me.
20 «Appraising for financial reporting according to 20 A. So I am trying to help you to speed the process.
21 IFRS.» 21 Q. Thank you, Ms Simonova, that’s much appreciated.
22 I think from your last answer, Ms Simonova, you 22 Can you see the top paragraph on that page, which
23 would probably agree; would it be fair to say that your 23 reads:
24 experience is, really, in carrying out appraisals for 24 «You are instructed to consider the expert reports
25 the purpose of IFRS accounting? 25 produced by Jones Lang LaSalle, dated 14 February 2014
22 24
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 (the ‘JLL report’) and Deloitte, dated 14 February 2014

2 (the ‘Deloitte report’) on behalf of the claimants (also

3 in the data room).»

4 Ms Simonova, you were instructed in this case not

5 just to consider the evidence of Mr Millard, but also

6 the evidence or the opinion of Mr Popov from Deloittes,

7 weren’t you?

8 A. Well, as far as I understand, I have to look at it and

9 when I saw that this is the business valuation,

10 I considered that irrelevant to my assignment.

11 Q. And why did you consider it irrelevant?

12 A. Because it’s a business valuation.

13 Q. I’m sorry, relevant? Sorry, I misheard.

14 A. And I was doing asset valuation. On the same page there

15 are — not on the same page. At the end of this there

16 is the list of assets that I have to appraise.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think she said that it was relevant,

18 rather than irrelevant.

19 MR LORD: I think it was irrelevant, I think, my Lord.

20 I think I misheard.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Did you mean that it was —

22 A. Irrelevant. I said it’s irrelevant.

23 MR LORD: I apologise, my Lord. I think I probably need the

24 headset as well.

25 Could you go to {E8/26.1/9}, Ms Simonova, because

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And not on any business value of the assets?

3 A. It’s not correct to make market value versus business

4 value. I just don’t want to give you a lecture on

5 market value, but business is the type of assignment,

6 and market value is the type of value. So you couldn’t

7 ask the question that way, sorry.

8 Q. Right. And in terms of the asset list you were asked to

9 value, it’s at {E8/26.1/11}, again in these

10 instructions, and you can see the list of assets you

11 were asked to value.

12 A. Mm hmm, yes.

13 Q. And you were not asked initially to value the

14 Western Terminal, were you?

15 A. Yes, it wasn’t included in the first assignment.

16 Q. Can I ask you, please, to go to {E8/26.3/364}, where you

17 exhibit a copy of draft instructions to you from

18 Withers, and the first page is at {E8/26.3/356}, where

19 you can see it is «Appendix 1 draft instructions to

20 IRE», then the next page, {E8/26.3/357}, is the first

21 page.

22 It is {E8/26.3/362} I would like you to look at,

23 please, «Assets excluded from valuation». It is set out

24 there in these draft instructions that Western Terminal

25 would be excluded, and in the second paragraph it says

25

1 the paragraph at the top of that page seems to repeat

2 the suggestion that you will at least consider the

3 Deloitte report, or reports. You were instructed to

4 consider the Deloitte report, weren’t you?

5 A. Maybe, but the most important is that I have to appraise

6 the assets, and when I saw this is the business

7 valuation, truth to say I didn’t study it that deeply.

8 Q. But do you go as far as to say that the Deloitte reports

9 are irrelevant to the consideration you have given to

10 this matter?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Could you be shown {E8/26.1/6}, please, which is another

13 page from these instructions, and halfway down it says:

14 «Your instructions.

15 «Assets to be valued.»

16 And it says:

17 «You are instructed to provide a report setting out,

18 in your expert opinion, the market value of the assets

19 detailed on the asset list (items 1-14 and 19), at the

20 dates provided on the asset list.»

21 Can you see that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So it is right, isn’t it, Ms Simonova, that you were

24 instructed to provide an opinion on market value of

25 these assets?

27

1 this:

2 «Property owned by Western Terminal LLC is to be

3 valued by Alvarez & Marsal … who have been engaged to

4 value the businesses of Western Terminal LLC and

5 Scandinavia Insurance LLC, on the basis that the

6 property at the Western Terminal was income producing

7 for Western Terminal LLC. As we have discussed and

8 agreed, A&M may require your assistance. The scope of

9 A&M’s engagement is to value the business of Western

10 Terminal LLC and Scandinavia Insurance LLC as at

11 December 2008 and May 2015 (to be updated at trial).»

12 Can you see that?

13 A. I see that.

14 Q. It is right, isn’t it, Ms Simonova, that in carrying out

15 your valuation of Western Terminal, you have approached

16 it on an income basis?

17 A. Western Terminal is the trade related property,

18 income — a complex of income generating assets, and the

19 standards require me to appraise them using the income

20 approach that will allow to determine the income

21 potential of that assets.

22 Q. But do you agree that that is the same approach that it

23 seems Mr Steadman was being asked to pursue as well;

24 some sort of income-based assessment; do you agree?

25 A. My Lord, there are big confusion in the world that make

26 28
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 a lot of non appraisal people, and even appraisers

2 sometimes do that. They confuse with business valuation

3 and asset valuation.

4 If I am allowed, and there is time, I could give the

5 example.

6 Q. I am going to ask you about the different approaches,

7 Ms Simonova. I am going to ask you questions about the

8 income approach in about five minutes, so I think you

9 will have your chance then. I am going to ask you some

10 more questions about your general approach and the

11 income approach and the DCF modelling. So I think you

12 will have a chance then, and if you haven’t had a chance

13 at that point, then do, please, tell his Lordship what

14 you want to say.

15 Was the answer to my question: yes, that you and

16 Mr Steadman have both carried out what are essentially

17 income-based valuations or assessments in relation to

18 Western Terminal?

19 A. Yes. I was appraising Western Terminal according to

20 the income that could be generated by that complex of

21 assets.

22 Q. Yes. If you could please be shown {E8/26.3/363} which

23 is another page from these draft instructions, it is the

24 next page, in fact, you will see at the foot of that

25 page in the last paragraph a reference to the access you

1 Could we also have, please, {E8/26.1/9}, which,

2 Ms Simonova, I have already taken you to. These are the

3 final instructions to you.

4 You can see, Ms Simonova, that in the copy of

5 the final instructions to you from Withers, the list of

6 documentation to which you have been given access only

7 runs to five, not six, entries; can you see that?

8 A. Mm hmm. Yes, I see.

9 Q. And the missing item on the final instructions from

10 Withers is number 6, which is the documents provided to

11 this firm by Mr Bromley-Martin; can you see that?

12 A. Mm hmm.

13 Q. And you have already confirmed about two minutes ago

14 that you were given access in the data room to documents

15 of that description. So can you tell his Lordship, can

16 you explain why in your final instructions that category

17 of documentation to which you were given access was

18 omitted?

19 A. I don’t know. Any appraiser should study all

20 information he could have access, and of course

21 I studied the report done by Mr Bromley-Martin, and why

22 did Withers exclude it from their final instructions?

23 I have no idea.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Were what you were given access to in

25 the data room documents or a report by

29 31

1 have been given to the data room; can you see that,

2 Ms Simonova?

3 A. Mm, I see.

4 Q. And you see that there are a number of items, or there

5 are a number of categories of documents to which you are

6 given access. Could you look, please, on the next page,

7 at page {E8/26.3/364}. Can you see number 6:

8 «Documents provided to this firm by Robin

9 Bromley-Martin, previously of Oxus, the firm which

10 brokered and managed the group’s planned development of

11 [Western Terminal] 2008.»

12 Can you see that?

13 A. Yes. I see it.

14 Q. And were documents — did you have access to documents

15 in that category?

16 A. You mean this investment —

17 Q. Yes.

18 A. — memorandum done by Mr Robin Bromley-Martin?

19 Q. Well, were you given access to a data room which

20 contained, amongst other things, documents in

21 the category at number 6 in this list?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And could you keep that open for a minute, please,

24 because these are the draft instructions. Could you

25 keep that open, please, or have that up on screen.

1 Mr Bromley-Martin?

2 A. Yes, I have access to that document.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Was it in the form of documents or was

4 it in the form of a report, possibly exhibiting

5 documents? Which was it?

6 A. Well, it called investment memorandum.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

8 A. I don’t know any other documents produced by

9 Mr Bromley-Martin.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Thank you.

11 MR LORD: Ms Simonova, I am going to ask you some questions

12 now about general points of valuation practice, if

13 I may, and it would be helpful if you could have,

14 please, the appendices to Mr Millard’s first report.

15 They should be in the bundle of Mr Millard’s reports for

16 his Lordship’s and Mr Stroilov’s ease of reference; they

17 should be at the back of Mr Millard’s first report.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: This is in the dedicated file?

19 MR LORD: It is, my Lord. They have been taken from the

20 expert Magnum references, they have just been culled and

21 put in there. Does your Lordship have those?

22 The Magnum reference, it starts at — well,

23 {E7/24/47} is the list of appendices. I would like to

24 take the witness, please, initially, to {E7/24/53},

25 which is appendix 3.

30 32
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 Do you have that, Ms Simonova?

2 A. Yes, I see.

3 Q. This is a paper produced by the International Valuation

4 Standards Council, isn’t it?

5 A. Yes, but that’s an exposure draft document. This is not

6 the approved document.

7 Q. And —

8 A. It says so.

9 Q. Are you familiar with this document, first?

10 A. Yes, of course.

11 Q. And is your evidence that you think that there was

12 an approved version, in other words there was a final

13 non-draft version of this document issued by the IVSC?

14 A. No, it doesn’t exist yet. They didn’t approve this

15 technical information paper.

16 Q. No.

17 A. So it wasn’t any input into being work, really.

18 Q. I understand. But you are familiar with this paper?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And do you agree that it sets out certain points of good

21 valuation practice, if using a discounted cash flow

22 method?

23 A. Probably, yes.

24 Q. If we could go, please, to {E7/24/61}, there is «The DCF

25 Method — Overview», and this paper sets out some

1 of discounting — or let’s say two years as against

2 50 years. If you have a two-year forecast period, the

3 terminal value will be very little discounted to reflect

4 the net present value, will it not, because you are only

5 looking at a period of two years into the future; do you

6 see what I mean?

7 A. But you will have a higher version.

8 Q. But that’s —

9 A. There is no difference.

10 Q. And if you have a 50-year period, then there’s going to

11 be much greater discounting of the reversionary year,

12 isn’t there, because that’s happening 50 years from now.

13 So it will be much more discounted, won’t it, when it

14 comes back to create a net present value; that’s right,

15 isn’t it, roughly?

16 A. Speaking arithmetically, it’s the same. There is no

17 difference on how long is the forecast period. What’s

18 important is if there is some fluctuations in the cash

19 flow.

20 Q. I think, Ms Simonova, what this sentence is saying is,

21 the shorter the period, the more important will be the

22 terminal value because it will be a higher proportion of

23 the current value; do you agree with that?

24 A. No.

25 Q. No, all right.

33 35
1 observations about the DCF method, and I would like, 1 A. This sentence is intended to stimulate to have longer
2 please, to go to the next page {E7/24/62}. 2 forecast period, in order to get to some stable cash
3 Can you see under item 10, Ms Simonova, it says this 3 flow.
4 in this short paper: 4 Q. Can you please be shown {E7/24/63}, which is the next
5 «When the forecast period is short the calculation 5 page in this paper. Can you see the heading «The DCF
6 of the terminal value becomes more critical as it 6 Method — Market Value»; can you see that?
7 represents a higher proportion of the current value.» 7 A. I see.
8 Can you see that? 8 Q. Can I take you, please, to paragraph 13 in this draft
9 A. Mm hmm. 9 paper, which says this:
10 Q. Can you confirm to his Lordship that that is, indeed, 10 «The use of the DCF method in a market valuation
11 the case? 11 makes use of available market evidence and should
12 A. What they mean in this sentence, that if the forecast 12 reflect the thought processes, expectations, and
13 period do not bring to some stabilised income, then they 13 perceptions of investors and other market participants
14 recommend to make it longer, but speaking 14 as best as they can be understood. As a technique, the
15 mathematically, it’s irrelevant how long is the forecast 15 DCF method should not be judged on the basis of whether
16 period: it could be five years, it could be 15 years. 16 or not the specific DCF expectation was ultimately
17 If the arithmetic is done properly, the result will be 17 realised but rather on the degree of market support for
18 the same. 18 the DCF expectation at the time it was undertaken. When
19 Q. Ms Simonova, is that your expert opinion; that, 19 the purpose of the valuation requires market value it is
20 actually, that sentence is wrong? 20 therefore important that the inputs into the DCF model
21 A. This sentence is not correct. That’s why the paper 21 are based on market evidence or reflect common market
22 wasn’t probably approved. 22 sentiment. If criteria specified by a particular owner
23 Q. Ms Simonova, may I suggest to you that that is not 23 or prospective owner is to be used, it should be
24 right, and if we take an example of a forecast period of 24 compared with market evidence and expectations. If it
25 one year, and a forecast period of 50 years, the amount 25 differs then it can only be used for giving
34 36
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 an indication of investment value, not market value.»

2 Do you agree with the propositions in that

3 paragraph, Ms Simonova? Do you agree that those would

4 be the good practice to adopt if you are using the DCF

5 method to carry out a market value of an asset?

6 A. I agree that to determine market value by DCF method,

7 you have to use the market evidence, which I did in my

8 both valuations of Onega Terminal and Western Terminal.

9 We completely studied the market data, the market

10 evidence of other companies, and we used that all in our

11 DCF method.

12 Q. So the market evidence you looked at was of other

13 companies, was it? Not of other properties?

14 A. We studied the market data of the other companies.

15 Q. Yes, but you agree, do you, that what is said in

16 paragraph 13 does represent the appropriate approach for

17 a valuer to take when using the DCF method to carry out

18 a market valuation?

19 A. Yes, I agree.

20 Q. And in paragraph 14 of this draft paper, it says this:

21 «All valuation inputs and assumptions should have

22 regard to the conceptual framework for market value in

23 the international valuation standards. Sufficient

24 research should be undertaken to ensure that cash flow

25 projections or expectations and the assumptions that are

1 Yes. If you can be shown {E8/26/13}, which is one of

2 your reports, you set out in all your reports what

3 «market value» means in this case, and you quote a well

4 known extract from this, and I think other professional

5 valuation standards.

6 «Market value.

7 «Valuation of land is based on the definition of

8 market value according to the methodological approaches

9 and requirements as set out in IVS (International

10 Valuation Standards) 2013.

11 «According to IVS 2013, page 9, paragraph 29:

12 «Market value is the estimated amount for which

13 an asset should exchange on the date of valuation

14 between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s

15 length transaction after proper marketing wherein the

16 parties are each acted knowledgeably, prudently and

17 without compulsion.»

18 Ms Simonova, I am sure you would agree that that is

19 the correct definition of «market value» that his

20 Lordship should be looking at in this case?

21 A. This is the exact definition of «market value» from

22 international valuation statements.

23 Q. So when a valuer is undertaking a market value of land,

24 he or she is trying to establish the estimated amount

25 that a buyer would pay to a seller of that land; isn’t

37 39

1 the basis for the DCF method are appropriate, likely and

2 reasonable for the subject market.»

3 Again, Ms Simonova, can his Lordship take it that

4 you would agree that that paragraph 14 sets out the

5 appropriate approach when carrying out a DCF valuation

6 for market value purposes?

7 A. Yes.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am so sorry, I am getting very

9 confused about this. When we say «market participants»,

10 do we mean people who would be or could be at that time

11 interested in purchasing or otherwise investing in the

12 particular property; is that what we mean?

13 A. No, not this one.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What do we mean by «market

15 participant»?

16 A. What I mean is the other companies that are doing

17 transshipment in this part of St Petersburg.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see. So other companies doing the

19 same sort of thing with the same sort of property; is

20 that right?

21 A. Yes, exactly.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see.

23 MR LORD: But, Ms Simonova, that’s not right, is it, because

24 when you are carrying out a market value — I just want

25 to find the reference in your report to what that means.

1 that right?

2 A. What you called it is already part of that definition.

3 Q. No, Ms Simonova.

4 A. You have to take into consideration everything, also the

5 deal should be done in the arm’s length transaction

6 after proper marketing and the parties should act

7 knowledgeably and without compulsion. You couldn’t just

8 pull one piece from the definition and say: this is the

9 market value.

10 Q. Sorry, Ms Simonova, it’s my fault. I was really asking

11 you to consider that what the market value requires

12 a valuer to do is to focus on the likely sales price at

13 which the particular land asset would be likely to

14 change hands.

15 A. This definition is just a definition of market value.

16 The IVS have all the guidance how to achieve that, and

17 there are three approaches: one is the cost approach;

18 the other one is the market approach; and the third one

19 is the income approach. All three approaches are equal

20 approaches to determine market value.

21 This is the definition that, of course, more close

22 to the market approach, but it doesn’t mean that the two

23 other approaches are not valid, and if there are no

24 sufficient comparables to use the market approach, you

25 could use other approaches that are applicable and

38 40
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 sufficient.

2 Q. Yes, Ms Simonova, I take the point, and I fully accept

3 that there are different valuation methods that can be

4 used to derive the market value of land, but whichever

5 of those methods the valuer adopts, they are trying to

6 establish the market value as you set out in your report

7 at {E8/26/13}; that’s right, isn’t it?

8 A. Yes, the goal is market value.

9 Q. And therefore —

10 A. But then there are three approaches and there are a lot

11 of methods.

12 Q. Yes, I’m going to take you through the various methods

13 in about another five minutes. I will go through them.

14 I understand your point, that the income —

15 A. Yes, but —

16 Q. — approach is one method, but before we get there,

17 I just want you to look at what —

18 A. Which is no better, no worse, than the market approach.

19 Q. And if we go back to {E7/24/63}, please, to the draft

20 paper from the IVSC, paragraphs 13 and 14, Ms Simonova,

21 are making the point, aren’t they, that if you use the

22 DCF method to carry out a market valuation of land, or

23 any asset, you must be sure to check on real market

24 evidence. In other words, you must check your DCF model

25 against the real world evidence. Isn’t that really what

1 rate used will normally be determined by entity specific

2 criteria…»

3 Then it goes on.

4 Now, it is right, isn’t it, Ms Simonova, that there

5 could be a difference between the investment value of

6 an asset and the market value of an asset; do you agree?

7

8 A. Yes, of course. The investment value is the value for

9 some investor who has some special features, and then

10 the — if appraisal doing that, he has to take into

11 consideration that special features which could be

12 preferenced to the market participants.

13 Q. Yes, and you have been asked to carry out a market

14 value, not an investment value, of the assets in

15 question in this case, haven’t you?

16 A. True.

17 Q. And, therefore —

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. — it would be an invalid approach of yours, wouldn’t

20 it, if you had carried out an investment valuation using

21 the DCF model, rather than a market value using the DCF

22 model?

23 A. I didn’t conduct investment value; I conduct the market

24 value.

25 Q. And I wonder, could we go to {E7/24/67}, in the same

41 43

1 paragraphs 13 and 14 are driving at?

2 A. Well, what I did is I used the market data because

3 I don’t have any other data, and so all this was

4 implementation of the market input.

5 Q. Yes. I wonder if you could please go on to page

6 {E7/24/66}, which is, again, another page from this same

7 draft paper of the IVSC. I wonder, Ms Simonova, would

8 you be kind enough to look at the heading about a third

9 of the way up from the bottom called «The DCF Method —

10 Investment Value»; can you see that?

11 A. Mm hmm.

12 Q. And paragraph 18 says this:

13 «When the purpose of the valuation requires

14 investment value to be estimated, the inputs used such

15 as the discount rate, discount period and cash flow

16 assumptions may not be the same as those that would be

17 used by a general market participant.»

18 Now, do you agree with that as a proposition of

19 valuation approach; do you agree with what paragraph 18

20 is saying?

21 A. Yes, it’s correct.

22 Q. Then in paragraph 19 it goes on to expand upon the point

23 in the following way:

24 «The cash flows may be market derived or be specific

25 to the asset or business being valued. The discount

1 document. It says «The DCF Method — General», and this

2 paper is setting out some observations upon the DCF

3 method in general.

4 Can you look in paragraph 24, Ms Simonova, please,

5 where it says this:

6 «In order to comply with the requirements of IVS 105

7 and to enable users of valuations to properly understand

8 the valuation [it] is good practice to disclose and

9 discuss the assumptions made in the DCF model in

10 the report.»

11 Do you agree with that statement, Ms Simonova?

12 A. I am sorry, do you mean the —

13 Q. That it’s good practice —

14 A. — point 21?

15 Q. Yes, in paragraph 24, the first sentence is suggesting

16 what would be good practice where a valuer is using the

17 DCF method. It is suggesting that:

18 «… to enable users of valuations to properly

19 understand the valuation [it would be] good practice to

20 disclose and discuss the assumptions made in the DCF

21 model in the report.»

22 Can you see that?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And I think you agree with that, don’t you; that it

25 would be good practice for a DCF valuer to disclose and

42 44
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 discuss the assumptions made in the DCF model in his or

2 her report?

3 A. I almost didn’t use assumptions. I was using the

4 factual market data.

5 Q. Sorry, you said you almost didn’t use assumptions. Is

6 that really a correct answer, Ms Simonova? Because we

7 are about to come on to your models and they are full of

8 assumptions; do you want to reconsider that last answer?

9 A. I said «almost».

10 Q. Do you agree that this would be good practice, to do

11 what this first sentence in paragraph 24 says? I am not

12 sure you have answered that question.

13 A. I didn’t understand, probably, the question. What point

14 are we discussing?

15 Q. Let me simplify it. Do you agree that it would be good

16 practice for a valuer carrying out a DCF model valuation

17 to set out in the valuation report a discussion of

18 the assumptions that they have made in their DCF

19 modelling? I think all it is really saying is that it

20 would be good practice to explain to the reader of

21 the report how the DCF model — how that modelling has

22 been carried out?

23 A. Of course. This is what standard is required.

24 Q. And do you agree that it would be good practice,

25 Ms Simonova, to do that?

1 Q. Can you see the final entry, which reads as follows:

2 «A sensitivity analysis on the impacts of key

3 operating forecasted data and the critical financial

4 assumptions (discount rate, perpetuity growth rate) on

5 the valuation results.»

6 Can you see that?

7 A. What I could say is that when we appraise the assets, we

8 operate with EBITDA.

9 Q. Sorry, Ms Simonova, that wasn’t really the question.

10 The question really was can you, first, see the

11 reference to «sensitivity analysis»; can you see that

12 entry on the page?

13 A. Sensitivity analysis, yes.

14 Q. And do you know what the phrase «sensitivity analysis»

15 means in this context?

16 A. Of course.

17 Q. Can you tell his Lordship what you understand by the

18 phrase «sensitivity analysis»?

19 A. Yes, my Lord, I understand.

20 Q. Can you tell his Lordship what you understand by it?

21 Can you tell his Lordship?

22 A. Oh, explain what does it mean, «sensitivity»?

23 Q. What you understand.

24 A. This usually done to understand how does the small

25 changes in parameters could influence the market value.

45 47

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And can you see that paragraph 24 goes on to give

3 examples of information that would normally be provided

4 where relevant; can you see that?

5 A. 24?

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. Mm hmm. Yes, I see it.

8 Q. And these are given as examples of information that

9 would normally be provided when you are carrying out

10 a DCF model, where relevant, and they include — can you

11 see at the foot of the page:

12 «The basis for adopting the terminal value

13 calculation.»

14 Can you see that?

15 A. I could say that I conduct everything that’s in

16 the point 24.

17 Q. So you would agree that your basis for adopting the

18 terminal value calculation should be explained in your

19 report?

20 A. Yes, it’s explained.

21 Q. And could we go, please, to {E7/24/69}. Can you see the

22 last point? And this is a continuation of the same list

23 of information categories referred to in that

24 paragraph 24.

25 A. Mm hmm.

1 And of course the market value usually is the range.

2 It’s an average number and the real market price

3 could — in the real deal could be different from the

4 market value. That’s why usually, very often,

5 appraisers could give the range, and the range, usually,

6 it’s the sensitivity of the model.

7 Q. And it’s right, isn’t it, Ms Simonova, that the reason

8 you would carry out sensitivity analysis when you are

9 doing a DCF modelling exercise is to test the

10 sensitivity of your model, by which I mean the extent to

11 which changes in the input assumption can have an effect

12 on the output valuation; would that be fair?

13 A. Any changes in the input has to be still within the

14 market. You couldn’t just change them any way from A to

15 Z. The inputs has to be — of course, market inputs

16 also have some range, but the market inputs has to be —

17 any inputs have to be market inputs. You couldn’t just

18 change them arbitrarily.

19 Q. No, but Ms Simonova, isn’t the reason you have

20 sensitivity analysis to check the robustness and

21 reliability of the DCF-calculated value that you are

22 deriving? Isn’t that why you would do that? To check

23 how reliable has your modelling been; in other words,

24 if —

25 A. Not exactly.

46 48
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 Q. No? Why do you say no?

2 A. Because sometimes you could have very readable and good

3 market data, and usually the sensitivity analysis is

4 something internal that people do, and keep that in

5 their working files and even doesn’t put that into the

6 reports, because sometimes they are too much for your

7 client, too — information to see, and there is no

8 absolute requirements to put this sensitivity analysis

9 to the report.

10 Q. Do you agree, Ms Simonova, that whenever you are

11 carrying out a DCF valuation, you ought to carry out

12 sensitivity analysis to check the reliability of the

13 input assumptions?

14 A. Not all the time. Sometimes, when appraisers have

15 doubts, they could.

16 Q. How often have you carried out DCF valuations in your

17 career where you have not carried out sensitivity

18 analysis to test the sensitivity of your DCF

19 calculation?

20 A. You already mentioned it. My main activity is appraisal

21 of assets for financial statements, and I conduct a lot

22 of that kind of appraisals, and maybe 5 per cent of that

23 will be — required sensitivity analysis, but 95 don’t.

24 Q. Is it not an IFRS requirement to do sensitivity analysis

25 if you are carrying out a DCF assessment?

1 that you have carried out in relation to your DCF

2 calculations herein?

3 A. Can you ask that question again?

4 Q. Yes, certainly.

5 A. Because even translation and your English and reading,

6 it doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sorry.

7 Q. Your reports, your expert reports in this case, do not

8 make reference to sensitivity analysis, do they?

9 A. Yes, the report doesn’t contain that.

10 Q. And that’s presumably — is that because you have not

11 carried out sensitivity analysis?

12 A. We did some internal analysis.

13 Q. And —

14 A. Not everything that we do goes to the report.

15 Q. So is it your evidence that you have carried out

16 sensitivity analysis in relation to your DCF

17 calculations in this case?

18 A. Not for all the assets, but some of them.

19 Q. And can I ask, why has that not been referred to in

20 the report, or exhibited to the report, by you?

21 A. That’s not required.

22 Q. So which of the calculations have you carried out

23 sensitivity analysis for?

24 A. I don’t remember right now exactly. It was half a year

25 ago, and I couldn’t answer that question.

49 51

1 A. The document — well, okay —

2 Q. No, sorry, the document —

3 A. — is the technical paper that was not approved, and

4 even it will be approved, it’s not a standard. It’s

5 a technical paper, it’s like a guidance. Its recommend,

6 but it doesn’t require to do that absolutely.

7 Q. Sorry, Ms Simonova, I think it was my fault. I think

8 I switched too quickly to another acronym. It’s my

9 fault entirely.

10 Think about the IFRS for a moment, not IVSC, but

11 IFRS, international financial reporting standards, which

12 I think your experience is in, isn’t it?

13 What I was asking you: I was asking you whether it

14 was not a requirement under the IFRS standards that you

15 carry out sensitivity analysis when you are doing a DCF

16 calculation for IFRS accounting purposes?

17 A. No. No. For fixed assets for financial statements,

18 there is no such requirement. This sensitivity analysis

19 is mostly used for business valuation.

20 Q. But your evidence is that in roughly in 95 per cent of

21 your DCF calculations, you would not have carried out

22 sensitivity analysis, approximately; is that right?

23 A. Yes. Exactly.

24 Q. And it’s right, isn’t it, that you don’t in your reports

25 in this case seem to refer to any sensitivity analysis

1 Q. Could we please go on. Can I suggest, Ms Simonova, that

2 a DCF valuation carried out without sensitivity analysis

3 is an unreliable way of valuing; do you agree?

4 A. No, I disagree.

5 Q. Can I ask you, please, about trade related properties.

6 I wonder, please, could you be shown … (Pause).

7 Can you please be shown {E7/24/76}. This is

8 appendix 6 to one of Mr Millard’s September reports.

9 Ms Simonova, can you see that’s an IVSC discussion paper

10 entitled «The Valuation of Trade Related Property»; can

11 you see that?

12 A. Yes, I see. It wasn’t approved.

13 Q. No, it wasn’t approved, that’s right, but if you go to

14 {E7/4/78} you can see the explanation for the background

15 to this document. It says this:

16 «The IVSC first published GN12 —»

17 «GN» is «guidance note», isn’t it, Ms Simonova? I’m

18 just asking you to confirm that «GN12» stands for

19 «Guidance Note 12″?

20 A. Guidance note.

21 Q. Yes, thank you.

22 » … GN12 The Valuation of Trade Related Property

23 in 2005 and updated it in 2007.

24 «In 2009, IVSC commenced its Standards Improvements

25 Project which involved reviewing all previously issued

50 52
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 IVSC publications. The Standards Board originally 1 that business.’ The GN went on to give hotels, theatres
2 proposed to update and replace GN12 with a new standard, 2 and fuel stations as common examples of TRP.»
3 IVS 2321 Trade Related Property, and an exposure draft 3 Can you see that?
4 was released for public comment in June 2010, along with 4 A. Yes.
5 drafts of all the other standards that the Board was 5 Q. If you could just read paragraphs 1 and 2 to yourself,
6 proposing to update. 6 please, and then I am going to ask you about
7 «The board did not approve the draft IVS 232 for 7 paragraph 3. (Pause)
8 publication for reasons explained later but instead 8 Have you read paragraphs 1 and 2, Ms Simonova?
9 agreed a project to undertake a review of the particular 9 A. Yes, the first and second.
10 valuation issues raised by TRP and to decide the nature 10 Q. Thank you, and you can see in paragraph 3 it goes on to
11 and extent of any future pronouncements that IVSC should 11 say:
12 make in relation to this class of asset. This 12 «The board did not approve this draft [that’s draft
13 discussion paper sets out a number of issues identified 13 IVS 232] for the following reasons.»
14 by the board on which respondent’s views are invited. 14 Again, can you just very quickly read to yourself
15 «This discussion paper seeks to establish whether 15 (a), (b) and (c), just to remind yourself. It is really
16 ‘Trade Related Property’ … represents a distinct asset 16 (b) that I want to ask you about, but I don’t want you
17 class that presents unique valuation challenges, whether 17 not to see the context of it. (Pause).
18 there are procedures that differ from those in the 18 You can see, Ms Simonova, that one of the reasons
19 existing IVSs that should be regarded as mandatory and 19 the board didn’t approve the draft is set out in (b),
20 whether guidance is required on the application of 20 and there was a concern, wasn’t there, about the
21 different valuation approaches to TRP.» 21 possibility of confusion between valuing a real property
22 Ms Simonova, can I take it that you are familiar 22 interest and a business in occupation of that property.
23 with this IVSC process whereby it has reviewed the 23 Hasn’t that always been one of the concerns in this
24 question of trade related properties; are you reasonably 24 area?
25 familiar with that? 25 A. This is what it says.
53 55

1 A. Yes, yes, I’m familiar.

2 Q. And there was a debate, wasn’t there, within the

3 profession, Ms Simonova; there was a debate within the

4 valuers’ profession as to trade related properties and

5 quite their status and how they should be defined and so

6 on. I am paraphrasing, but there was a debate, wasn’t

7 there, amongst professionals as to the whole question of

8 TRPs; would that be fair?

9 A. There was a big discussion and the decision was made to

10 leave the definition of «trade related property» in IVS,

11 which is any property that has a trade potential, but

12 the board decided to continue discussions because there

13 were some issues that not everybody could agree.

14 Q. And it is right, isn’t it, Ms Simonova, that the board

15 in the end did not replace Guidance Note 12, did they?

16 Guidance Note 12 remains in place, doesn’t it, for TRPs,

17 as far as the IVSC is concerned?

18 A. No. In 2011 the IVS was approved in the new, absolutely

19 new editing, and GN12 doesn’t exist any more.

20 Q. If you look at {E7/24/79}, you can see that this

21 discussion paper has a heading «Overview of GN12 and

22 Draft IVS 232». At paragraph 1 it says:

23 «TRP was defined in GN12 as ‘any type of real

24 property designed for a specific type of business where

25 the property value reflects the trading potential for

1 Q. And if you go, please, to the next page, which is

2 {E7/24/80}, the heading, «What is trade related

3 property?».

4 This is as much for your Lordship, really; perhaps

5 I don’t take too long with the witness, but I want

6 your Lordship to see this really, just as we are at this

7 point.

8 Your Lordship will see — sorry, Ms Simonova — at

9 paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 reference to the debate which I am

10 going to ask Ms Simonova questions about.

11 Ms Simonova, can you see under the heading, «What is

12 trade related property?», this paper quotes from GN12,

13 paragraph 5, and then in paragraph 6 it gives examples,

14 and then in 7 it says:

15 «The opposing view is that there is no bright line

16 that determines when the potential profitability of

17 a business in occupation becomes a prime indicator of

18 the value of the real property interest. It is

19 therefore misleading to attempt to distinguish TRP from

20 other types of property. Proponents of this view point

21 out that many industrial buildings are purpose built and

22 not easily adapted for a different type of industrial

23 activity. Real property as diverse as ports, utility

24 supply installations and agricultural land may all have

25 unique features that mean that the cash flows that they

54 56
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 can generate are the best indicator of value.»

2 Can you see that?

3 Ms Simonova, that was the —

4 A. And I’m required to answer?

5 Q. I was asking whether you accept that there was a debate

6 within the valuers’ profession reflected in those

7 paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of that draft?

8 A. Yes, I see.

9 Q. And if we could go, please, to {E7/24/81}, this paper

10 set out «Valuation Methods», and you can see in

11 paragraph 9 it says this:

12 «Both GN12 and the draft IVS 232 recognised that

13 a distinct valuation method under the income approach

14 was frequently used for TRP. This involved determining

15 the EBITDA of a hypothetical business in occupation

16 based on the performance of a reasonably efficient

17 operator and then either using this as the basis of

18 forecast cash flows in a discounted cash flow model or

19 applying a capitalisation factor to determine the value.

20 This method was tentatively referred to in the draft IVS

21 232 as the ‘profits method’…»

22 Can you see that?

23 A. Yes, I see. That’s exactly what I did.

24 Q. And it’s right, isn’t it, Ms Simonova, that if you were

25 carrying out a valuation under the income approach of

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But GN12, as we see it here, has it

2 been replaced by some other guidance note or settled

3 standard?

4 A. Right now, no.

5 MR LORD: Ms Simonova, I think Mr Millard thinks that the

6 Guidance Note 12 does remain the guidance note in place

7 for TRPs for the IVSC, and I think you just confirmed

8 that that’s probably right, didn’t you?

9 A. It’s not valid, but we could use it.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see, so it’s not directory, as it

11 were; it ceased to have any status except as sensible

12 guidance; is that right?

13 A. Yes, like guidance to use, and if it contradicts the

14 standard that is valid, then we couldn’t use it.

15 MR LORD: And if you look at Guidance Note 12, at

16 {E7/24/86}, you can see what paragraph 1.1 says, and

17 I just want to ask you about some features of this

18 guidance note.

19 Could you go to {E7/24/88}, please.

20 A. Well —

21 Q. 5.4:

22 «Valuations of TRPs are usually based on assumptions

23 that there will be a continuation of trading by

24 a reasonably efficient operator, with the benefit of

25 existing licences, trade inventory, fixtures, fittings

57

1 a TRP, you could potentially use either the discounted

2 cash flow model, or you could apply a capitalisation

3 factor to determine the value; in other words there

4 would be at least — well, there would be two

5 possibilities, wouldn’t there? Two different

6 approaches?

7 A. Yes, true.

8 Q. And I think in all your valuations in this case, you

9 have used a discounted cash flow model, haven’t you?

10 A. I did.

11 Q. And if you go, please, to {E7/24/86}, you will see

12 a copy of Guidance Note 12.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is this the one the witness said is no

14 longer in force?

15 MR LORD: I think that’s right, but perhaps she might

16 confirm. I need to check that.

17 A. This is — yes, this was cancelled.

18 Q. So what is the current guidance, then, from the IVSC on

19 trade related properties? Do you know where it is to be

20 found? Is there a new guidance note, for example?

21 A. There is the definition of trade related property in

22 international valuation standards, and there is the

23 textbooks and there are the courses to study. The

24 appraisers don’t use just the standards; they use a lot

25 of sources.

59

1 and equipment, and with adequate working capital.»

2 Do you agree that that would be the usual approach

3 when you are valuing a TRP?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And in paragraph 5.5, the note says this:

6 «Profit generated, in excess of market expectations

7 that may be attributed to the manager is not included.»

8 Do you see that? Again, do you agree that when you

9 are carrying out a TRP valuation, you should exclude

10 particular excess of market profitability attributable

11 to the manager concerned?

12 A. Yes, the goodwill should be excluded.

13 Q. And if we go to {E7/24/89}, 5.8:

14 «TRPs are by their nature, specialist assets that

15 are usually designed for a specific use.»

16 Do you agree with that as a proposition of TRP

17 valuation practice? Do you agree, Ms Simonova, that

18 that is an appropriate way to view TRPs, if they are

19 TRPs?

20 A. You mean 5.8?

21 Q. Yes.

22 A. Well, yes.

23 Q. And do you agree with the proposition that:

24 «Changes in market circumstances, whether structural

25 to the industry or due to the local competition or

58 60
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 another reason, can have a material impact on value.»

2 Do you agree with that as a proposition?

3 A. Yes, of course. This is why our three appraisals have

4 different results.

5 Q. And in 5.9 the guidance note says this:

6 «It is necessary to distinguish between the asset

7 value of a trade related property and the ownership

8 value of the business.»

9 Do you agree that it is necessary when you carry out

10 an asset valuation of the TRP that you must distinguish

11 it from the ownership value of the business?

12 A. If you — we already discussed that market value and

13 investment value, and investment value will be the value

14 for the order, and market value will be for any market

15 participants.

16 Q. That’s right. You have to be careful, don’t you,

17 Ms Simonova, to make sure that you are valuing the value

18 of the land, rather than being drawn into valuing just

19 the value of the business; isn’t that what that sentence

20 is cautioning against? In other words, how much is that

21 property, that TRP, worth in the market?

22 A. I don’t see that.

23 Q. I see.

24 Can you go, please, to {E7/24/90}.

25 My Lord, just five minutes and then I’m sure it’s

1 exhibited to Mr Millard’s report. It is appendix 7.

2 Ms Simonova, this is a RICS paper. Can you see

3 that? The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors; are

4 you familiar with the RICS?

5 A. It’s a RICS document, yes.

6 Q. Sorry?

7 A. It’s a RICS document.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: RICS.

9 MR LORD: Oh yes, sorry. You can see what this document

10 says about valuation of trade related properties. Can

11 you see it says, 1.1:

12 «Certain trade related property are valued using the

13 profits method (also known as the income approach)…»

14 Can you see that? Then in paragraph 1.1:

15 «Valuers who prepare valuations of trade related

16 property usually specialise in this particular market,

17 as knowledge of the operational aspects of the property

18 valuation, and of the industry as a whole, is

19 fundamental to the understanding of market transactions

20 and the analysis required.»

21 Can you see that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And if we go, please, to {E7/24/102}, under the heading,

24 «6, Assessing the trading potential», 6.1 says this:

25 «There is a distinction between the market value of

61 63

1 time for a break, but if I could finish off this line of

2 questioning.

3 Ms Simonova, could you be shown {E7/24/90} where you

4 will see «IVS 232 Trade Related Property (Draft only —

5 not approved)». This is the draft standard that was

6 referred to in the discussion paper we have just looked

7 at; can you see that? Which we know was not, in

8 the event, approved by the IVSC.

9 If you look at {E7/24/92} you can see «Commentary

10 Trade Related Property.»

11 And I want to show you, please, valuation

12 approaches, at the foot of the page, C4:

13 «The market approach and the income approach

14 described in the IVS framework can be applied to

15 the valuation of a trade related property. The cost

16 approach is not normally applicable.»

17 Can you see that, Ms Simonova?

18 A. Yes. I agree with that.

19 Q. You agree. Then if we go over the page to {E7/24/93},

20 the paper goes on to make some observations about the

21 market approach and the income approach; can you see

22 that?

23 A. Mm hmm.

24 Q. And can you be shown {E7/24/96}, which is the last of

25 these papers I would like to show you. These are all

1 a trade related property and the investment value — or

2 its worth — to the particular operator.»

3 Do you agree, Ms Simonova, with that distinction?

4 A. We already discussed that.

5 Q. I think you agree with it, don’t you?

6 A. That there is a difference between market value and

7 investment value.

8 MR LORD: My Lord, would that be a convenient point to have

9 a short break?

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

11 MR LORD: Sorry for going on slightly too long.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am not aware that I have in paper

13 form the appendices that you have been going through,

14 and I think I should, because they are pretty dense.

15 MR LORD: I think they were behind Mr Millard’s —

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: They are, are they?

17 MR LORD: They are behind one of his reports.

18 Oh, sorry, my Lord; if your Lordship is saying are

19 they in the original bundles, no. Your Lordship asked

20 for the reports without the appendices, but we can

21 supply those. They are quite voluminous. They ought to

22 be in the additional file I have just handed up.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Are they?

24 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, I have been …

25 Mr Millard’s report of 11 September 2015 should be

62 64
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 at the back, {E7/24/47}. Sorry, my Lord, I had hoped

2 that they were behind Mr Millard’s report. I am told

3 they are.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I will take them upstairs and have

5 a look.

6 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, I do apologise.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, no, it is my fault entirely.

8 I don’t think I had them and I am just trying to get

9 a grip of them. I would like to know in due course,

10 maybe the experts would be able to agree, which are

11 valid and which aren’t.

12 Thank you. Ten minutes.

13 (11.27 am)

14 (A short break)

15 (11.41 am)

16 MR STROILOV: My Lord, a small housekeeping question.

17 Ms Simonova has indicated it would be easier for her if

18 she is allowed to have some warm water or tea or coffee

19 in the witness box. My learned friend doesn’t object,

20 but I understand it is normally not allowed. But it is

21 easier for her to enable her to speak. So if

22 your Lordship could kindly give permission for that?

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, of course.

24 A. Thank you.

25 MR LORD: Ms Simonova, you should see on screen a map that

1 you think the Western Terminal site is on that map.

2 A. It’s just very small and I couldn’t see very well.

3 Q. Do you have the big —

4 A. Then — let’s open my report, it’s there.

5 Q. No, I would like you to see if you could actually

6 identify, from your own knowledge, where the

7 Western Terminal site is on that map?

8 A. I think it’s more like 28.

9 Q. You think it is 28, do you?

10 A. Or maybe 30. It’s very, very small.

11 Q. But should his Lordship take it that you are not really

12 sure that — when I show you this map, you are not

13 really very sure where the Western Terminal is on it?

14 A. I’ve never seen that, I never said that I was there.

15 I couldn’t inspect the terminal because I wasn’t given

16 access, so I work only with the maps, and — let’s open

17 my report and there is the map. And there is the

18 cadastre, and I was working with the cadastre.

19 Q. Ms Simonova, do you not think it is an important step

20 when valuing a piece of land to identify with some

21 certainty where that land is?

22 A. Of course, but this is just a schematic. It’s not

23 a map.

24 Q. The Western Terminal, Ms Simonova, is actually

25 number 30.

65 67
1 was exhibited to one of Mr Millard’s reports, and 1 A. And it’s yellow, not orange.
2 I think it is also in fact exhibited to — Mr Steadman 2 Q. And can you tell his Lordship where Onega Terminal is,
3 has it in his report as well {E6/23.2/1}. 3 please, on this map?
4 Does your Lordship have a larger copy? 4 A. I think it’s on this skinny … (indicates).
5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, a map, thank you. 5 Q. Yes.
6 MR LORD: I hope it has made its way through to your 6 A. … bay, in that skinny bay.
7 Lordship and Mr Stroilov and the witness. 7 Q. Yes. I am going to ask you, please, about
8 I think there is the coffee. 8 Western Terminal. I will come onto Onega Terminal, but
9 Ms Simonova, can you see the big map there on your 9 I am going to ask you about Western Terminal itself.
10 right? We have had it blown up. That’s an official 10 Could you look at your report, please, at {E8/27/9},
11 map, isn’t it, of the big port of St Petersburg? 11 where you set out on that page and following
12 A. Yes. 12 a description of Western Terminal. If you turn over the
13 Q. And for his Lordship’s note, the Western Terminal is 13 pages, you can see that you have set out some maps
14 number 30, isn’t it? It’s the yellowy orange. If 14 {E8/27/10}. Can you see you have set some maps out?
15 I hold it up, that’s the Western Terminal, number 30, 15 A. Yes.
16 isn’t it? (indicates). 16 Q. And you have then set out on {E8/27/11} an aerial view
17 Zapadny Company, you can see on the key. Sorry, 17 of the terminal?
18 Ms Simonova, I think you look a bit puzzled. Are you 18 A. Yes, this is what it is.
19 familiar with this map? 19 Q. And at {E8/27/12} there is another aerial view,
20 A. Yes. 20 a photograph. You have shown on that picture, haven’t
21 Q. So where is the — 21 you, Ms Simonova, berth 15 and berth 16?
22 A. Well, not all the orange is Western Terminal. 22 A. Mm hmm.
23 Q. So which one is Western Terminal? 23 Q. Berth 16 is the much smaller red line on that picture,
24 A. First of all, you said 30, and it’s yellow. 24 isn’t it?
25 Q. Don’t worry about me. You just tell his Lordship where 25 A. On figure number 4 we marked berth 16 with the red, and
66 68
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 we also — it’s much shorter than berth 15.

2 Q. And if we go to {E8/27/14}, in table 4 you have set out

3 some information about the berths; can you see that?

4 You have said —

5 A. Mm hmm.

6 Q. You have explained that berth 16 is 120 square metres,

7 whereas berth 15 is 4,800 square metres; can you see

8 that?

9 Do you see that?

10 A. Mm hmm.

11 Q. Ms Simonova, could you be shown {E8/27/12}. It’s right,

12 isn’t it, that in order to use berth 16 at all, you

13 would need to be able to use the adjoining storage land,

14 or land adjoining that berth, wouldn’t you?

15 A. Sure.

16 Q. And if you go to {E8/27/23}, which is in this same

17 report, you say this:

18 «The land and berth at Western Terminal cannot

19 operate at their ‘maximum potential’ (maximum

20 profitability) independently of each other. Profitable

21 (or perhaps even feasible) operation of the berth

22 requires use of the land abutting the berth for storage

23 and transshipment of delivered cargo.»

24 Can you see that?

25 A. Mm hmm.

1 we have some photographs taken and exhibited to this

2 report back in 2012.

3 Can you see those photographs, Ms Simonova?

4 A. Yes, I do.

5 Q. And at {E8/27.3/23} we see some more photographs.

6 A. Mm hmm. Yes, I see the photos, and I copied them from

7 GVA Sawyer’s report, because I didn’t have access to the

8 facility.

9 Q. I am just checking whether — it may not be translated

10 here. No. Sorry, my Lord. (Pause).

11 Sorry, Ms Simonova, I think because I need the

12 English translation I’m going to have to go to this

13 report in the D file, I do apologise. Could we have

14 {D156/2652.1/1} — I am sorry, I had hoped to use your

15 exhibit of this but I don’t think there is

16 a translation — which is a translation, I think, of

17 the same report.

18 Can we go to {D156/2652.1/11}, please, where

19 GVA Sawyer give some description of

20 the Western Terminal. Can you see that they describe

21 the administrative building, and they say about a third

22 of the way down the page that it is a temporary

23 structure and is not registered. Can you see that?

24 A. Mm hmm.

25 Q. Is that correct or not, as far as you are aware?

69 71
1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Where is it? I am so sorry. 1 A. Well, the building is there. We could see on the
2 MR LORD: Second to last paragraph. 2 photographs.
3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: «The land and berth … cannot 3 Q. Yes, but do you agree, as far as you are aware, that
4 operate …» 4 that building is a temporary structure and not
5 MR LORD: Yes, and then it is the second sentence. 5 registered in the Russian Registry of Real Estate
6 Ms Simonova, I think what you are very fairly saying 6 Property Rights?
7 in that sentence is it’s not even feasible to operate 7 A. Coming from the description of construction, I couldn’t
8 a berth unless you have the use of the abutting land for 8 say it’s temporarily.
9 storage and transshipment; can you see that? 9 Q. And if you look at the guard house, which is referred to
10 A. Not exactly. To maximise profit, it is good to work 10 just below that, the guard house is, again, said not to
11 together, and plus there has to be the activity that 11 be registered in the Russian Registry of Real Estate
12 allows that. 12 Property Rights. Again, as far as you are aware, is
13 Q. Can I ask you, please — I want to ask you about the 13 that right, that the guard house was not registered in
14 condition of the Western Terminal. I want to take you, 14 the Russian Registry?
15 please, to the GVA Sawyer report of April 2012, which 15 A. You mean the guard house?
16 I think is a document that you exhibit. If you see 16 Q. Yes. Do you agree?
17 {E8/27/9}, which is the report we are currently in, you 17 A. Yes, it’s not registered.
18 will see you make reference to this document. I wonder 18 Q. In your report, {E8/27/13}, you refer to
19 if we could have it on screen. {D156/2652.1/1}. 19 the Western Terminal, and in the third paragraph in
20 A. This was the appraisal done on the order of the Bank? 20 the second line you say:
21 Q. Yes, actually, sorry, it’s probably fairer to you to go 21 «The terminal also has an internal railroad
22 to your report, sorry. You exhibit this in your report, 22 connecting line that ends at the berth. This allows
23 so if I give the reference to that, it’s {E8/27.3/17}, 23 some cargoes to be directly loaded from vessels to
24 I’m sorry about that. If we could work from that copy. 24 railroad wagons or platforms.»
25 If Ms Simonova could please be shown {E8/27.3/22}, 25 Can you see that? Then at {E8/27/36}, also in your
70 72
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 report, you set out some of the planned development 1 you say:
2 works that would be necessary to turn the 2 «Taken together, the land and improvements comprise
3 Western Terminal into a container facility, and you will 3 a fully functioning marine terminal.»
4 see on that page that those works include: 4 Ms Simonova, I just want to explore with you what
5 «Reconstruction of spur railway track to connect to 5 you mean by the phrase «fully functioning marine
6 the Oktyabrskaya railway.» 6 terminal». I wonder, could we be shown the Lair report
7 As part of the first stage. Then the second stage: 7 from June 2008. The reference is {Documents/1/0.1}
8 «Construction of the railway lines on berth SV-16.» 8 where you will see, Ms Simonova, that is the first page
9 Can you see that? 9 of a translation of a Lair report for July 2008 on the
10 A. Improvements, yes. 10 Western Terminal, and if we could go, please, to
11 Q. It is right, isn’t it, Ms Simonova, that there was no 11 {Documents/1/32.1} we should see some documents that
12 usable railway on the Western Terminal as at 2012? It 12 were exhibited by Lair to that report.
13 was going to need reconstruction, wasn’t it, to link it 13 Have you seen these photographs before, Ms Simonova?
14 to the nearby branch line? 14 I think you probably have, because I think you have
15 A. I couldn’t tell you exactly because I haven’t been there 15 considered this report, haven’t you?
16 and there were no photos, but what I could see is that 16 A. Yes, I did; that’s why I made conclusion that this
17 three railroads were on the Russian cadastre and the 17 building is not temporary. This is the obviously one
18 three — one railroad is connected to the terminal 18 floor industrial building with the serious framing and
19 with — it’s called Roslyakovskiy put’. It’s connected 19 serious concrete constructions.
20 to the terminal with the main railroad and it goes 20 Q. Right, and the top left is the admin building, isn’t it,
21 outside the terminal, and there were two railroads that 21 and the top right is the guard house; would that be
22 could be used for loading and reloading, and all that 22 right?
23 was on the cadastre. 23 A. Well, the photo 6.1 shows that — the nice
24 But — and I doubt that the Russian cadastre will 24 administrative building already being there.
25 put on the cadastre any railroads that didn’t exist at 25 Q. Could we go to the next page, please {Documents/1/33}.

73

1 that time. Furthermore, we saw these railroads from the

2 Google Earth photos.

3 Q. Right. So if we get the Google Earth photographs. If

4 you could be shown, please — I wonder if you could be

5 shown {D196/2931/1} which I think is an aerial

6 photograph taken in 2006.

7 Which year should I show you, Ms Simonova? Which

8 year would you like me to show you? 2015? Could we,

9 perhaps, scroll down to page 14 in that run?

10 Are they the railways that you are talking about?

11 A. Probably this is the — they are.

12 Q. Yes, and if we go back to an earlier picture, 2014

13 {D196/2931/12}, and if we could blow that up a bit and

14 zoom that in a bit, even more on the left-hand side

15 block, please, if you can do that. That’s it.

16 It doesn’t look, Ms Simonova, as if the railways are

17 there in September 2014, does it? Doesn’t it look as if

18 they have probably been built between that date and

19 2015?

20 A. So you want to —

21 Q. It just may be these railways have been built —

22 A. So you are to tell me that the report of GVA Sawyer

23 foolished me with the detail on the railroads?

24 Q. I wonder, could you go to {E8/27/13} which is your

25 report on Western Terminal, and in the last paragraph

75

1 I think that’s the Russian, sorry, the next one

2 {Documents/1/33.1}. Those are some photographs of

3 the outside of the Western Terminal — sorry, not the

4 outside; that is some photographs of

5 the Western Terminal.

6 Could we go to the next photographs, please

7 {Documents/1/34.1}.

8 Ms Simonova, would it be fair to say that these

9 photographs suggest that this site was in a very basic

10 condition? It doesn’t look like it has been at all

11 developed, does it, really? Would you agree?

12 A. This is why we assume that there will be paving and

13 there will be a lot of improvements.

14 Q. Yes?

15 A. And we subtract that from the value.

16 Q. I understand.

17 A. We didn’t blatantly say: let’s put containers over

18 there.

19 Q. No.

20 A. But there were several spaces in that terminal and the

21 space that they were using for wood was good enough, but

22 we still assumed completely new high quality paving in

23 order to switch it to a container terminal.

24 Q. Yes, I understand. I think you have looked at the

25 information memorandum done by Oxus, haven’t you,

74 76
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 Ms Simonova? If you could be shown that, please,

2 {D52/889/1} and if you could go, please, to

3 {D52/889/35}. This is the final information memorandum

4 of July 2008, done by Oxus for the Western Terminal

5 proposed development.

6 Can you see, Ms Simonova, I know it is a document

7 that I think you do rely upon, so can you see in

8 paragraph 8.1, this document says this:

9 «Historical information.

10 «The Western Terminal was acquired in 2007, and was

11 in a very run down condition.»

12 Can you see that?

13 In the course of your investigating the

14 Western Terminal on behalf of the defendants, you have

15 not been made aware, have you, of any material

16 improvements to the Western Terminal that were done by

17 OMG that would materially increase its value in their

18 hands?

19 A. No. I don’t have that information. I could see from

20 Google Earth that one of these berths is in a very good

21 shape, then I saw the captain, the chief captain of

22 St Petersburg, big port of St Petersburg, with the

23 schematics how to use that berths, and that’s all the

24 information I have.

25 Q. So none of that would really materially increase the

1 Q. Yes.

2 A. You were asking that questions.

3 Q. And when I asked you whether you had valued it as a TRP,

4 your answer was that you had appraised it as a TRP. Is

5 there a difference between valuation and appraisal, do

6 you think? Is there perhaps a difference between

7 an appraisal, as you would see it, and a valuation by

8 a valuer?

9 A. The valuation and appraisal is synonymous.

10 Q. You went on, didn’t you, to use the income approach to

11 value the Western Terminal?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And you adopted the DCF model under that approach,

14 didn’t you?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Can you be shown {E8/28/6}, please. This is one of your

17 supplemental reports, Ms Simonova, and I just want you

18 to look at what you have said at the top of that page,

19 where you say this:

20 «It should be noted that, if performed correctly,

21 the valuation result for an asset using the income

22 approach (DCF model) and the valuation result using the

23 comparable approach should yield similar results. The

24 reason they do not in this case is that Mr Millard has

25 not used appropriate comparable land plots and has made

77 79

1 value of Western Terminal, would it? None of that work

2 would really make a big difference to the value of

3 the plot as seen in these photographs of Lair?

4 A. Well, Lair also assumed that there will be investment,

5 that the terminal will be paved, and it will be improved

6 for the container terminal.

7 Q. Yes. Yes, I understand.

8 A. The same, GVA Sawyer also did that. Both companies

9 appraised it as a trade related property.

10 Q. Yes, but you are talking about prospective improvements

11 as part of the container redevelopment, aren’t you,

12 here?

13 A. The reason an efficient operator will do these

14 improvements, in order to increase the value of the

15 terminal, and then when any appraisal company did the

16 appraisal, they take that into consideration.

17 Q. Yes, I understand.

18 I’m going to ask you, Ms Simonova, about the market

19 valuation of Western Terminal, and I’m going to suggest

20 to you that you have adopted the wrong approach to

21 valuing Western Terminal. You have valued it, haven’t

22 you, as a trade related property?

23 A. I appraised it as trade related property. We just

24 discussed with you for now what it is and how it should

25 be appraised.

1 inappropriate adjustments to them; this is explained in

2 further detail below.»

3 Can you see that?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. So, Ms Simonova, it is right, isn’t it, that you are of

6 the opinion that whether you use the DCF income approach

7 or whether you use the comparable approach, the market

8 comparable approach, to a valuation of, let’s say, the

9 Western Terminal, those two approaches, if properly

10 carried out, should come to a similar valuation,

11 shouldn’t they?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. I am going to suggest to you, Ms Simonova, that

14 Western Terminal should not be viewed as a trade related

15 property. Can we have {E7/24/44}, please.

16 A. Can I argue about that statement?

17 Q. Yes, I know that you don’t accept it. I know you don’t

18 accept it. I am going to put to you —

19 A. Yes, but you either ask the question and I answer. You

20 can’t just state it.

21 Q. What I am going to do is to show you the reasons why

22 I am going to suggest that you have wrongly classified

23 the Western Terminal.

24 A. Okay.

25 Q. And then you will have a chance to say why you do or

78 80
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 don’t agree with that, if that’s all right.

2 The page I have taken you to is actually a page from

3 Mr Millard’s report. It is actually a report about the

4 Onega Terminal, so it’s not the Western Terminal, but it

5 is a convenient place to put to you a number of points

6 about classifying a port as a TRP.

7 Can you see, Ms Simonova, about three paragraphs

8 down, there’s a paragraph that begins:

9 «The IVS and the RICS both define trade related

10 property …»

11 Can you see that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. I am going to ask you about these points, but if you

14 want to, could you just read to yourself from that

15 paragraph, down to the end of the final bullet point.

16 It is about a third of the way up. It is really three

17 paragraphs and the bullet points in the third paragraph.

18 (Pause).

19 Have you read that, Ms Simonova? I will ask you

20 about these points in a minute, but wouldn’t it be fair

21 to say that, really, what the Western Terminal comprised

22 was a land plot where you could store things and some

23 berth access to the sea which could be used for

24 unloading goods; wouldn’t that be a fair description of

25 the site?

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: — because I think what Mr Lord is

2 doing is, he accepts that the page we were looking at

3 relates to the Onega Terminal, but the points that are

4 made as to how you define or identify trade related

5 property may apply to the Western Terminal.

6 MR LORD: Thank you, my Lord.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: He is really borrowing from the

8 description that Mr Millard gives, as to why the

9 Onega Terminal is not a trade related property in his

10 opinion, to identify points which may assist him develop

11 his point that neither is the Western Terminal. But he

12 is basically asking you, as I understand it, about the

13 Western Terminal.

14 MR LORD: Yes, my Lord, I was trying to save time, because

15 similar points arise.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think the witness didn’t know where

17 you were; were you in the Onega Terminal, in which case

18 all this stuff about containers and cars may be

19 relevant, or were you in the Western Terminal. She is

20 understandably confused, so I think you just have to

21 take it in stages.

22 A. Thank you, my Lord. It’s exactly what it is.

23 MR LORD: I’m asking about the Western Terminal.

24 A. I’m confused.

25 Q. I’m asking about the Western Terminal, and I am just

81 83

1 A. Probably originally, yes.

2 Q. And it is right, isn’t it, as Mr Millard — it’s right,

3 isn’t it, that that site could be used for a number of

4 different purposes, couldn’t it?

5 A. We need to look what is the most efficient way to use

6 that space. Mr Millard considered that space empty, but

7 when I have been there and take photos that you could

8 see in my report, it was full of cars, and the cars was

9 stored there and they were unloaded from the boat, taken

10 to this terminal, and in the Onega Terminal — because

11 you are jumping from one terminal to another and you

12 have confused me.

13 And so the other use — you could make some café in

14 that building, but what will be the efficient use of

15 that facilities.

16 Q. It could be used, couldn’t it, for general storage

17 purposes by some industrial operation? You could use

18 that site, couldn’t you, for some sort of general

19 storage?

20 A. It was intended for containers. Part of the space was

21 for the railroad terminal. Onega in part was for

22 containers, and …

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think a bit of confusion has crept

24 in —

25 MR LORD: Sorry, it is probably my fault.

1 suggesting to you that, as an industrial site, it could

2 be used for a number of purposes, couldn’t it? A number

3 of different industrial entities could use that site.

4 They could come in and they could use it for storage, or

5 they could come in and they could develop it in some

6 way. It wouldn’t have to be used as a container

7 terminal, would it?

8 A. Okay. To clarify, I could say that there is no big

9 difference between Onega and Western Terminal. Both are

10 trade — international trade terminals, dedicated for

11 international trade. The reason it will be unfeasible

12 to have there some casino or hotel is because — let’s

13 look at the big port of St Petersburg. The big port of

14 St Petersburg is the western gate of the entire Russian

15 Federation, which is a huge country that have all these

16 northern ports that are frozen, and the only port that

17 is not frozen is the big port of St Petersburg.

18 Therefore, it’s so obvious for any investor and any

19 appraiser that using such a unique place for trading

20 terminal is so obviously feasible that there is no even

21 need to compare: should we put some industrial

22 facilities there, or should we put some casino or hotel.

23 There are not that many trading terminals in

24 the world, let me tell you. There are a lot of offices,

25 casinos and cinemas, but the trade related terminals, if

82 84
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 you take the entire planet, are not that many. But if

2 you take the big port of St Petersburg, it is unique for

3 the entire world because there is no country that size

4 that would have such a unique port.

5 So it is irrelevant that you could build there any

6 other facilities; these facilities will be used exactly

7 for trade terminal and international trade.

8 Now, the question is what kind of trade: chemical,

9 fertilisers? Maybe I am volunteering some answers, but

10 I did that analysis in my report, but it is utterly have

11 no any sense to analyse will anybody build there

12 anything but a terminal for importing and exporting

13 goods that are coming from Russia or coming into Russia.

14 Q. Could you be shown {E7/25/5}, please, because that is

15 an extract from Mr Millard’s report on the

16 Western Terminal. So to avoid any confusion, I will

17 show you what he says about the TRP label in relation to

18 Western Terminal.

19 This is from Mr Millard’s report on the

20 Western Terminal of 2 November 2015, and he is

21 commenting on your opinion, Ms Simonova.

22 You can see, two paragraphs up from the bottom, he

23 says:

24 «I fundamentally disagree with the approach that has

25 been taken by Ms Simonova to value the property of

1 today; do you agree with that?

2 A. No, disagree.

3 Q. And that Western Terminal is not a trade property in

4 the sense used in the TRP definitions?

5 A. Disagree.

6 Q. And that applying a TRP to the Western Terminal confuses

7 the valuation of the property itself and the value of

8 any business run from that site; that’s right, isn’t it?

9 A. No. I disagree, especially we were using the view that

10 paper on trade — on DCF, and it says that the assets

11 can be valued according to DCF.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Can I just clarify on this; I am not

13 sure what you are putting, really. Are you putting to

14 the witness that no ports can be valued as TRPs, or that

15 this port cannot be valued as a TRP?

16 I do, I think I should confess, think it odd that

17 somewhere like Heathrow or Baltimore Maritime Port could

18 not be valued as a TRP. Are you confining it to this

19 port, or what are you doing?

20 MR LORD: I was putting to Ms Simonova — I took her this

21 morning to the fact that there is a debate as to what

22 a TRP is.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

24 MR LORD: And I am just suggesting to her that the better

25 view — better view — is that a port, any port, would

85 87
1 Western Terminal. In my opinion she does not produce 1 not be classified as a TRP —
2 a robust valuation opinion. The differences in approach 2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Any port?
3 between Ms Simonova and Mr Steadman reinforce my views 3 MR LORD: Any port would not be classified as a TRP simply
4 in this area … 4 by virtue of it being a port.
5 «As to the flaws in Ms Simonova’s approach to 5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Simply by virtue of it being a port.
6 the valuation of the property of Western Terminal, 6 Right.
7 I reiterate here and expand upon a number of the points 7 Well, I take it Ms Simonova is saying: nonsense to
8 which I previously made in my review of Ms Simonova’s 8 that.
9 valuation of Onega Terminal in my supplementary report 9 A. I agree with you, my Lord.
10 of 18 September 2015, which apply equally to a trade 10 MR LORD: Ms Simonova, looking at the Western Terminal —
11 related valuation of the Western Terminal property.» 11 don’t worry about ports generally. Looking at the
12 If you go over a page, you will be able to see that 12 Western Terminal, the Western Terminal was not a port
13 on that page {E7/25/6} and the next page {E7/25/7} and 13 like Southampton port, or the port that his Lordship
14 the one after {E7/25/8}, there are three pages, 14 just described to you: it wasn’t really a fully
15 Mr Millard goes through a number of the papers and 15 functioning marine terminal, was it? It was a plot of
16 points which I took you to this morning, which I am not 16 land with access to the sea via berths. It wasn’t
17 going to take you to again. 17 really a trade property, was it?
18 Can I just put to you the points at {E7/25/6}. It 18 A. I completely disagree with that.
19 is the bullet points, really. Can I suggest to you, 19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Ms Simonova —
20 Ms Simonova, that the better valuation view is that 20 A. I already told about the big port of St Petersburg, big
21 a port would not be treated as a TRP; what do you say to 21 and unique place, and there is no other such port in
22 that? 22 the world. And so it’s a trade related property, as any
23 A. I think it’s wrong. 23 port in the world.
24 Q. And the better view amongst valuers would be that you 24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Can I ask this: if a property — if
25 should not value ports on the basis of future cash flows 25 there is land which is capable of being used as a port
86 88
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 but does not presently have the facilities to be used as

2 a port, given its propensity to be used as a port, could

3 it be valued as trade related property?

4 A. You have to. You have to. There is no other way to

5 appraise trade related property using the income

6 approach, and I explain in my report, why couldn’t you

7 look just on the land?

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So if I had land at Heathrow Airport,

9 just outside the perimeter of Heathrow, which could be

10 used for a runway, would I expect to value that simply

11 as land, or as trade related property?

12 A. I think that if there will be a piece of land that is

13 feasible to be used in the context of that market, and

14 it’s possible to connect it to the airport and it has

15 positive cash flow, it has to be appraised according to

16 the trade related property.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

18 MR LORD: If you could be shown {E6/23.2.1}, please, this is

19 the big map of the port of St Petersburg. I think,

20 Ms Simonova, I should put the point a bit differently.

21 It’s really his Lordship’s last point to you, or the

22 point he raised.

23 If you look at that map, you can see that that map

24 shows the big port of St Petersburg, doesn’t it?

25 A. Mm hmm.

1 Q. Ms Simonova —

2 A. And —

3 Q. Sorry.

4 Ms Simonova, would you agree that whether the

5 Western Terminal is to be viewed as a trade related

6 property or not, you could use either the market or the

7 income approach to valuing it; would you agree with

8 that?

9 A. You again trying to vice versa the things that couldn’t

10 be vice versa. The market — or maybe I don’t

11 understand you.

12 Q. Yes. If we go to E7 —

13 A. Wait, wait, wait. Maybe I didn’t understand the

14 question. (Pause).

15 Q. Yes. If you have —

16 A. Let me read your question. (Pause).

17 Oh yes, I agree with that.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 A. At first I didn’t understand.

20 Q. It is my fault. I think I showed you — I was going to

21 show you {E7/24/92}, which I showed you, I think,

22 earlier this morning. Do you remember, it was

23 an extract from the IVS 232 trade related property, the

24 valuation approach. Do you remember seeing that this

25 morning:

89

1 Q. And if you look at the Western Terminal land site,

2 number 30, that couldn’t be described as a port, could

3 it? It’s land within a port, but it is not a port, is

4 it? It isn’t a port site in itself; do you see the

5 point, the difference? It is really the point my Lord

6 just put to you.

7 A. When we are looking on the Google photos and we see the

8 berths, and we see five boats parked to these berths,

9 how could we not say that this is not the port

10 facilities for transshipping the goods?

11 Q. And if we go back to {E7/25/6}, please, which is

12 Mr Millard’s report, I just want to put to you the last

13 bullet point on that page, which is this, where he says

14 that:

15 «The property [that’s Western Terminal] would not be

16 required to be sold as part of a going concern.»

17 He is right, isn’t he, to say that? The

18 Western Terminal, before it had been developed as you

19 are suggesting it would be, would not require to be sold

20 as a going concern, would it? You haven’t got

21 a container terminal up and running, have you, by that

22 stage?

23 A. According to international valuation standards, we have

24 to determine the market value considering highest and

25 best use.

91

1 «The market approach and the income approach … can

2 be applied to the valuation of trade related property.»

3 Can you see that? I think you are agreeing, aren’t

4 you, Ms Simonova, that you can use either the market

5 approach or the income approach to value a TRP?

6 A. The market approach or income approach.

7 Q. You can use either, can’t you, in theory?

8 A. Yes. If there is — if there is sufficient comparable,

9 you could use it.

10 Q. I think, Ms Simonova, your evidence is that after the

11 Western Terminal would be developed into a container

12 terminal, it would then be a trade related property; is

13 that right? That you are really saying it is a trade

14 related property after it has been developed; is that

15 your evidence?

16 A. No.

17 Q. You are saying that it is a trade related property in

18 its pre-developed state?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And don’t you accept that your highest and best use,

21 which is to take it to be a container terminal, is going

22 to involve a very significant transformation of

23 the site?

24 A. There has to be some sufficient investment in order to

25 convert this terminal from timber to container.

90 92
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 Q. And the fact that you are saying that the highest and

2 best use will not be its current use, does that not

3 count against classifying the Western Terminal in its

4 pre-developed state as a trade related property?

5 A. Something wrong with translation. Let me read.

6 (Pause).

7 No, the answer is no, if this trade related property

8 already, because this terminal is doing transshipment of

9 timber. The problem is timber is not best — highest

10 and best use for that terminal. That’s why it has to be

11 converted.

12 Q. Could you be shown, please {E8/27/22}, which is

13 an extract from one of your reports. Can you see what

14 you say at the foot of the page, the last paragraph:

15 «As with all income generating assets, market

16 valuation of the Western Terminal requires use of

17 the income approach…»

18 Can you see that?

19 A. The last piece?

20 Q. Yes, it’s the last paragraph.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Ms Simonova, it’s not right, is it, to say that wherever

23 you have an income generating asset you must value it on

24 the income approach; that’s not right, is it?

25 A. No.

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Can I make sure I have understood?

2 Presumably if there is an established market so that

3 there are lots of sales of very similar properties, such

4 as there might be in a terraced house situation, you

5 don’t need other techniques because you know what the

6 market value is because you have a market. If you do

7 not have a market, or it is a particularly restricted

8 use, you may have the need for other techniques; have

9 I understood the position correctly?

10 A. Yes, my Lord. Exactly. You are absolutely right.

11 MR LORD: Could you please be shown {E7/25/9}, please.

12 Ms Simonova, you know that Mr Millard’s opinion is that

13 the adjusted sales comparable approach is the better

14 approach to valuing Western Terminal, don’t you?

15 A. I know that.

16 Q. And you can see at the foot of the page there, {E7/25/9}

17 you can see some of the observations which Mr Millard

18 makes about your approach; can you see those?

19 A. I see.

20 Q. And if you look at paragraph 2.4 at the bottom of

21 the page, Mr Millard sets out his opinion on why he does

22 not support your income approach to valuing the

23 property. Can you see paragraph 2.4?

24 A. Oh, it started from the sixth page and goes further

25 down. Okay.

93

1 Q. Let me give you an example. Any commercial property

2 that’s up for sale is likely — is certainly likely,

3 isn’t it, to be an income generating investment, at

4 least potentially.

5 I will give you an example: residential land, for

6 example. Houses could be bought by a commercial

7 investor to let them out for the income that they give,

8 couldn’t they?

9 A. So what?

10 Q. And you could have, let’s say, a row of very expensive

11 terraced houses in the middle of London, couldn’t you,

12 and a property investor could invest in them with a view

13 to the commercial revenue he would derive from them?

14 A. Mm hmm. Could be some situation.

15 Q. And you are not saying, are you, that in that situation,

16 you couldn’t have a comparable valuation approach to

17 valuing the properties in that terrace simply because

18 they were going to generate income for an investor?

19 A. No, I never said that.

20 Q. Because, let’s say there are 50 properties, and one has

21 just been sold, and the next door property came up for

22 sale the next day. Wouldn’t the best market value

23 evidence be the comparable sale price realised by the

24 next door terraced house the previous day?

25 A. Of course.

95

1 Q. If one goes over the page to {E7/25/10}, Mr Millard sets

2 out some reasons why he takes issue with your adoption

3 of the DCF approach to valuing Western Terminal.

4 A. Mm hmm. I see.

5 Q. If I could just put some of these to you. The DCF

6 approach which you have adopted to value the

7 Western Terminal, that depends entirely on the

8 assumptions and inputs in that financial analysis,

9 doesn’t it?

10 A. It depends on market data. Entirely depends on market

11 data.

12 Q. But the market data in the DCF approach that you have

13 taken does not involve, does it, looking at any

14 comparable sales of land like Western Terminal?

15 A. And the reason is because there is no any comparables.

16 The comparables have to be used in the big port of

17 St Petersburg, but in that sense, there are a lot of

18 buildings in this world, but there is not that many

19 terminals or land in the ports.

20 Q. Do you agree that the DCF valuation approach you have

21 taken to Western Terminal is very sensitive to changes

22 in the inputs or assumptions?

23 A. No, I disagree.

24 Q. And can you see what Mr Millard said in the third

25 paragraph, where he says:

94 96
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 «As an example of this sensitivity …» 1 A. Yes, because the first two years, first year the
2 Can you see that paragraph? Can you read that 2 terminal don’t operate at all, and all the operations on
3 paragraph, please? 3 container started in the second year, and the investment
4 A. He referred to Steadman’s report? 4 has to be made, which is like a capital cost, and that’s
5 Q. Yes. Mr Millard is pointing out that in Mr Steadman’s 5 why the first two years we have negative cash flow,
6 report, Mr Steadman states a range of values; one can 6 which is very common for this kind of situation.
7 see that relatively small changes in input assumptions 7 Q. But until you get to your reversion year, the cash flow
8 have quite a dramatic effect upon the final value. Can 8 position is negative, isn’t it? It’s minus $16 million,
9 you see that? 9 isn’t it?
10 A. I disagree with that statement, even though it’s not 10 A. Yes.
11 about my report. It’s Mr Steadman’s report. 11 Q. So in order to get a positive value for Western Terminal
12 Q. And Mr Millard considers that a discounted cash flow 12 via this calculation, you are looking, aren’t you,
13 valuation of the Western Terminal is a technical 13 entirely at the reversionary year or the terminal value,
14 exercise which can become divorced from market 14 aren’t you?
15 realities. 15 A. This is how the formulas for this appraisal are
16 Do you agree, first, that your discounted cash flow 16 designed.
17 analysis of the Western Terminal value was a technical 17 Q. I am going to go, if I may, with you through some of
18 exercise? 18 the assumptions that you make in this calculation.
19 A. No, I disagree. 19 Could you be shown {E8/27/28}, where you set out some
20 Q. Do you agree that in order to check the reliability of 20 evidence about the tariffs that would be achievable for
21 a DCF valuation of Western Terminal, you had to check 21 the handling of containers at the developed port of
22 the market realities? In other words, real market 22 Western Terminal, don’t you?
23 evidence? 23 A. This is the tariffs that we studied and existed at that
24 A. I used the real market data. I didn’t have anything 24 date of appraisal.
25 else. 25 Q. And you say at the bottom of {E8/27/28}:
97 99
1 Q. And do you agree that in order to give a sense check to 1 «Most terminals operate under the ‘user pays’
2 a DCF valuation of a property, you ought to cross-check 2 pricing principle and set tariffs based on the results
3 with actual market transactions, actual sales of land, 3 of margin analysis of alternative means and routes of
4 so you can, if you like, test your DCF valuation? 4 transportation. For example, at Ust-Luga the tariffs
5 A. It will be good if such transactions exist. 5 for most services are 30 per cent to 40 per cent lower
6 Q. I am going to ask you now, Ms Simonova, about your DCF 6 than the tariffs of the BP [that’s the big port of St
7 modelling itself, but only on the basis that — I don’t 7 Petersburg] terminals. But Ust-Luga has a significant
8 accept that that was the right approach, but I am going 8 drawback in that it requires an additional
9 to ask you questions about your modelling of the DCF 9 150 kilometres of road transportation.»
10 approach. 10 That’s what you say, isn’t it?
11 Can I ask you, please, about the assumptions that 11 A. Yes.
12 you have made in relation to your DCF calculation? The 12 Q. It’s right, isn’t it, Ms Simonova, that Ust-Luga would
13 calculation itself, I think, is at {E8/27/40}. 13 have been a real competitor to a developed
14 Ms Simonova, it is right, isn’t it, in table 19, 14 Western Terminal?
15 that you set out in that table your DCF calculation for 15 A. Well, it might, but look at the table 7 on the same
16 Western Terminal? 16 page, and you could see how many million TEUs per year
17 A. Yes. 17 all ports in Russia are transshipping, and look at only
18 Q. And you take a five-year forecast period, don’t you? 18 3.6 million TEU. So Russia is very, very small piece of
19 A. Four years. 19 container — has a small piece of container trade, and
20 Q. Four years, and then the fifth year is the reversion 20 the reason is because since the Soviet Union time, the
21 year. 21 ports wasn’t developed enough. The port facilities
22 A. Yes. 22 didn’t develop. It started to develop recently, and
23 Q. And if you look at the present value of that cash flow, 23 that’s why — look, Russia is a huge country, but it has
24 that’s actually negative, isn’t it, minus US$16 million 24 only 3.6 million TEU. This is why switching to
25 in total? 25 container trade is a big future for all Russian ports.
98 100
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 Q. Could you be shown, please, Mr Popov’s report at

2 {E5/18/18}, paragraph 5.14. Mr Popov is there talking,

3 I think, about Onega Terminal in paragraph 5.13, but the

4 same point applies to Western Terminal, also in the same

5 port of St Petersburg. Can you see what Mr Popov says

6 in paragraph 5.14 about the advantages of Ust-Luga,

7 Ms Simonova?

8 A. Where is — oh, I see. I see. (Pause).

9 I could say that a lot of trade from the big port of

10 St Petersburg, especially with dirty cargoes, switched

11 to Ust-Luga because St Petersburg is improving its

12 environmental requirements, and so if you are talking

13 about dirty cargoes, the Ust-Luga is a serious

14 competitor, but if you are talking about containers,

15 there are still not enough container terminals in and

16 around St Petersburg.

17 Q. Do you agree that the Western Terminal, if it had been

18 a container terminal, would have been under significant

19 competitive pressure from Ust-Luga?

20 A. No, I don’t agree. Everybody will get their share.

21 Q. And if Ust-Luga had charges that were 30 to 40 per cent

22 lower than port of St Petersburg, that competition could

23 potentially have driven down the handling charges in

24 Western Terminal, couldn’t it? If there was a cheaper

25 terminal at Ust-Luga, that would have been a competitive

1 Q. And if you look at the total capacity paragraphs, the

2 first three paragraphs on that page, you base your DCF

3 analysis, don’t you, on a total capacity for

4 Western Terminal of 500,000 TEUs per annum?

5 A. It’s like a theoretical number capacity. The real

6 number is shown on the line below.

7 Q. You are reliant, aren’t you, Ms Simonova, for this

8 capacity calculation, on the information memorandum of

9 Oxus, aren’t you?

10 A. No.

11 Q. If you look in the second paragraph —

12 A. Not just. Not just that. We, of course, wrote that,

13 but then we conduct our own research, and you could see

14 the numbers that probably — of turnover that are

15 different from that investment memorandum.

16 Q. So are you saying you have carried out some additional

17 capacity analysis beyond taking the 500,000 figure from

18 the information memorandum?

19 A. Well, it’s from the market data.

20 Q. And what market data is that?

21 A. We used the forecast of reputable sources of

22 information, and as you could see, the first forecast

23 year, there is zero turnover. The second forecast year,

24 we considered that there are two pieces of terminal and

25 during the first year, the one piece will be remodelled

101 103

1 downward pressure on the handling charges at

2 Western Terminal?

3 A. Mr Popov also mentioned the 150 kilometres shoulder(?),

4 and depending on what kind of cargoes and depending on

5 what kind of containers, it could — this market could

6 be restated and re-established, and for those that

7 150 kilometres is important, then they will go to

8 Ust-Luga, and dirty cargoes now go into Ust-Luga.

9 Q. Have you carried out any sensitivity analysis to check

10 the effect on the DCF valuation of a reduction in

11 the tariffs?

12 A. No. No, and we could see that tariffs are not going

13 down. Even after 2008 crisis, the container

14 transshipment almost didn’t lose their market.

15 Q. Could you go, please, to {E8/27/30}, and I want to ask

16 you about the assumption of total capacity; can you see

17 that?

18 A. Table figure 11?

19 Q. Well, it is the top of {E8/27/30}. It is really the —

20 A. No, I don’t know, I’m asking what table to look.

21 Q. It’s not a table, it’s the text you have at the top of

22 the page. It is table 9, but it has two elements: total

23 capacity and container throughput, and I want to ask you

24 about total capacity. Can you see that, Ms Simonova?

25 A. Yes, I see.

1 and will be ready to take containers, and only after the

2 second year the total capacity could be reached, even

3 though we think that total turnover will be like

4 420,000, coming from the data of the reputable sources.

5 Q. Ms Simonova, in your report you seem to proceed on the

6 basis that Western Terminal could have a capacity of

7 500,000 TEUs per annum, even if it didn’t go on to

8 the third stage of development outlined in the Oxus

9 information memorandum; is that right?

10 A. Well, we think that this capacity could be reached if

11 there will be a market demand, enough market demand.

12 Q. So is your evidence —

13 A. Technically it could be reached.

14 Q. So is your evidence that — so your evidence is that

15 Western Terminal could have a maximum capacity of

16 500,000 containers per year, TEUs per year, even if the

17 third stage of the development set out in

18 the information memorandum was not undertaken?

19 A. We didn’t take third step into consideration at all,

20 and … but we think that the capacity could be reached.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am sorry, I didn’t hear the …

22 A. From the third — we think that this capacity could be

23 reached, but we think that there is no need in the third

24 berth. We analysed the capacity of two berths — two —

25 two berths, and we think that capacity is determined by

102 104
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 the ability of the berth to transship through the berth,

2 and we think that the third berth is unnecessary.

3 MR LORD: Do you agree, Ms Simonova, that the capacity for

4 handling containers at Western Terminal would depend

5 upon the physical size of the site?

6 A. Not exactly. We think it depends on the equipment of

7 the berths and the equipment that will be used, and

8 there are modern ways of logistics, so we think the

9 limit is the berths.

10 MR LORD: My Lord, I see the time.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I am so sorry. In the transcript

12 the witness told me she didn’t take something into

13 consideration at all, and I wasn’t quite sure what it

14 was. It may be that others have determined.

15 It’s at [draft transcript] line 10, Ms Simonova; you

16 were asked:

17 «Question: … your evidence is that Western

18 Terminal could have a maximum capacity of 500,000

19 containers per year … even if the third stage of the

20 development set out in the information memorandum was

21 not undertaken?»

22 And you said:

23 «Answer: We didn’t take [something] into

24 consideration at all … but we think the capacity could

25 be reached.»

1 by 5.00 pm?

2 MR LORD: Possibly.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. I’m sorry.

4 MR LORD: I apologise for that, my Lord.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, no, I mean I understood the basis

6 on which you are —

7 MR STROILOV: I am not inviting it, but as I understand it,

8 it might be possible, having interposed Professor Guriev

9 who has to leave by 10.30 on Monday, it might be

10 possible to continue then. I am not inviting that,

11 that’s obviously undesirable, but it is doable.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay, perhaps you could chat amongst

13 yourselves.

14 Would it help to start at 1.45, or is that really

15 rather exhausting? We have had a long morning. Which

16 would you recommend?

17 MR LORD: I am in your Lordship’s hand, really, and the

18 witness’s hands.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: How are you feeling, Ms Simonova; you

20 have had a long morning, it is quite detailed; would you

21 be happy if we cut down the break to about 40 minutes

22 instead of an hour? Would you be happy with that?

23 A. I am fine. I thought it will be harder.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Are you all right, Mr Lord?

25 MR LORD: Yes, my Lord.

105 107

1 Could you tell me what you didn’t take into

2 consideration?

3 A. We didn’t take into consideration the third berth.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The third berth. Thank you very much.

5 A. We think they don’t need this berth to achieve this

6 capacity.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I thought that was it, but I thought

8 I had better check.

9 Yes, how are we doing on time?

10 MR LORD: Not as well as I had hoped, my Lord.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I do — and I think it will be the

12 limit of my grasp — I don’t want to go past 5.00 pm

13 today.

14 MR LORD: My Lord …

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I just think this is quite detailed

16 stuff, and —

17 MR LORD: My Lord, I have tried up to this point to go

18 reasonably slowly.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

20 MR LORD: I doubt I will — I have a fair bit more.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Shall we reconvene at 1.45; would

22 everyone be all right with that?

23 MR LORD: My Lord, I do think there is a risk that I won’t

24 finish by 4.30 pm today.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. Do you think you might finish

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, shall we do that, just to bag

2 another quarter of an hour?

3 I don’t think this is much good, but as I have found

4 it and to swank that I was working, I will pass it up.

5 It is a case relevant to the issue as to the involvement

6 of Withers, and I thought — it simply goes into the

7 issue of limited retainers. I don’t think it will bear,

8 but just so that you can be thinking whether it does or

9 not. (Handed).

10 Is there anywhere where I can see, in the evidence,

11 what the present activities and profitabilities are with

12 respect to Western Terminal and Onega Terminal?

13 MR LORD: There are accounts, my Lord.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Could someone at some point, just so

15 I can look at them, identify where they are, to save

16 me …

17 MR LORD: You mean accounts up to now?

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, what is being done —

19 MR LORD: I see, sorry.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think with respect to Onega, at any

21 rate, this witness hasn’t been able to see what happened

22 since 2009, I think, but if they are, those —

23 MR LORD: Yes, I understand my Lord. I thought we were

24 talking about the OMG period. I will have to check.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, thank you. Very good.

106 108
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 (1.09 pm)

2 (The Luncheon Adjournment)

3 (1.45 pm)

4 MR LORD: May it please your Lordship.

5 Ms Simonova, I wonder could I take you through the

6 information memorandum that you refer to in your report,

7 please, just to get you to look at one or two aspects of

8 that. Could you be shown {D52/889/6}, please, which is

9 a page from that document. If you look at three

10 paragraphs up from the foot of the page, it says:

11 «Western owns 8.1 hectares freehold within the

12 designated area of the Greater Port of St Petersburg and

13 plans to create another 3.3 hectares by reclaiming land

14 on an adjacent site.»

15 Can you see that?

16 A. Yes, I do.

17 Q. Then it reads on:

18 «The terminal currently consists of two berths and

19 open storage space, with little hard standing.»

20 Then next paragraph down, the last paragraph:

21 «The facility will be developed in three phases over

22 30 months, and comprise …»

23 You see what that all says. Then on the following

24 page {D52/889/7}, it says:

25 «Upon completion of the development, Western will

1 Can you see that?

2 A. «The capital cost estimate for the three stages is

3 $220 million.»

4 This one?

5 Q. Yes. Stage 1, 40 million; stage 2, 80 million; stage 3,

6 100 million; do you see that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Then on {B52/889/36} of this, it sets out some

9 projections. 8.2, transshipment volumes, at the top.

10 It gets up to 500,000 on this estimate in 2010 and 2011.

11 On {D52/889/37}, «Summary of Proposed Capital

12 Expenditure», and you can see again the breakdown of

13 the proposed capital expenditure to develop the site.

14 It is right, isn’t it, Ms Simonova, that the

15 information memorandum was based upon capital

16 expenditure of approximately $220 million; that’s right,

17 isn’t it?

18 A. Probably, yes.

19 Q. And that expenditure was going to finance the

20 development of Western Terminal in three phases, wasn’t

21 it?

22 A. Yes, probably.

23 Q. And the information memorandum’s projections of TEU

24 capacity per annum of 500,000 units were based upon the

25 full development of three phases, wasn’t it?

109 111

1 have three berths …»

2 And then it goes on. It says:

3 «The terminal will be capable of handled up to

4 2 MTPY of general cargo and up to 500,000 containers

5 (‘TEUs’) per annum…»

6 Do you see that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Then if we go to page 10 in this document {D52/889/10},

9 the information memorandum sets out the capital

10 expenditure predicted or envisaged for this development

11 project. Halfway down the page:

12 «The capital expenditure can be summarised as

13 follows, and is split into three phases.»

14 You can see 2008, 2009 and 2010.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Can you see that?

17 A. Mm hmm.

18 Q. Then, please, if we could go to page 18 of this

19 document — actually, page 17 first, {B52/889/17},

20 «3.3 The Upgrade Project». You see what is said there.

21 Three phases. Going over the page, {B52/889/18} the

22 third stage, June 2010 to March 2011. Then at the foot

23 of the page, «3.4 Cost Estimate».

24 «The capital cost estimate for the three stages is

25 $220 million.»

1 A. Yes, this is what they obviously think.

2 Q. And in your statement, in your report at {E8/27/30},

3 second paragraph down, you refer to the Oxus information

4 memorandum, when you are referring to container capacity

5 for Western Terminal; can you see?

6 A. Mm hmm. We already discussed that.

7 Q. I’m going to show you Mr Steadman’s — can we see,

8 please, {E6/20/10}. Mr Steadman in his report on

9 Western Terminal at 3.3.2 gives some turnover figures

10 from the World Bank analysis for TEUs per annum; can you

11 see? And at {E6/20/11} he has a table. The first

12 entry: number of TEU handled per hectare stacking area

13 per year: high turnover terminal, 35,000 to 40,000;

14 average container terminal, 15,000 to 30,000. Can you

15 see that?

16 A. Yes. I can see that.

17 Q. So if this performance indicator was an appropriate one,

18 and bearing in mind that the site is about 8 hectares,

19 the maximum capacity for that site would not be 500,000

20 per annum, would it?

21 A. Is that a question?

22 Q. Yes.

23 A. First of all, I couldn’t comment the report of

24 Mr Steadman. Second, we develop our own plan coming

25 from market data, and so it has nothing to do with what

110 112
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 Mr — this is the difference between business valuation

2 and asset valuation.

3 Q. And what’s the market data you are identifying? Can you

4 identify it, please? What is the market data you refer

5 to that would justify a maximum —

6 A. They are all in —

7 Q. — capacity of 500,000 TEUs per annum on an 8-hectare

8 site?

9 A. All my data in my appendices, if we talk about the

10 capacity of the land, we were checking how many

11 containers could be absorbed by some piece of land, then

12 we take into consideration that how many levels of

13 container that could be and how long the containers

14 could stay at the property, what is the market, usually,

15 time for storing these containers. This is how we

16 agreed that the capacity could be 500,000 TEUs, but we

17 didn’t take that from Mr Steadman’s report or

18 Mr Bromley-Martin’s report.

19 Of course, we have seen that there, but we were

20 checking it by ourselves. We were talking to

21 specialists, we were consulting on that issue with those

22 who operate container terminals, and so this is how we

23 came to our forecast.

24 Q. But can you identify where in the appendices his

25 Lordship will find the support in this market data? Can

1 A. Which point?

2 Q. Paragraphs 9.45, 9.46, 9.47, 9.48, and over the page

3 {E5/16/70} to 9.50, please. Mr Popov is looking at the

4 business plan for Western Terminal prepared by Oxus.

5 A. I think the points that Mr Popov is bringing up are

6 utterly irrelevant.

7 Q. He is making the point, isn’t he, that a turnover

8 equivalent of 15 per cent of the port of St Petersburg

9 2009 dry cargo turnover, that that could not be

10 generated from a site that’s only 1.5 per cent of its

11 total area?

12 A. I think these numbers are irrelevant.

13 Q. And he is suggesting in paragraph 9.47 {E5/16/69} that

14 Western Terminal will need a site of approximately

15 37 hectares to achieve a forecast throughput of 500,000

16 TEUs per annum; what do you say to that?

17 A. I disagree.

18 Q. And in 9.48, Mr Popov identifies another potential

19 limitation; can you see? He identifies that the big

20 port of St Petersburg had limitation due to its size and

21 logistics infrastructure {E5/16/70}. Can you see that,

22 in 9.49 and 9.50 he explains what he means? What he’s

23 suggesting there is that there are throughput capacity

24 limitations on Western Terminal because of limitations

25 on the port of St Petersburg; do you agree with that, or

113 115

1 you identify which bit of your report, or your

2 appendices to the report, you are talking about?

3 A. If you will find the — it’s the report on

4 Western Terminal and it is appendices on to that report.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is it fair to refer the witness to

6 3.4.3?

7 A. And if you will bring it and show it to me, I will tell

8 you where it is.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: {E6/20/12}.

10 A. There, in Russian. It may be a problem for you, but

11 there were so many materials that we might not translate

12 everything.

13 MR LORD: Ms Simonova, that’s assuming that this site is

14 expanded, isn’t it, to 11 hectares?

15 A. No.

16 MR LORD: Could you be shown, please, {E7/25/9}. Can you

17 see the third bullet point there, which is from

18 Mr Millard’s report? Would you just read that, please.

19 (Pause).

20 Do you agree, Ms Simonova, with what Mr Millard

21 there says: that a throughput of 420,000 TEUs per annum

22 at Western Terminal would be 15 per cent of the total

23 activity in the port of St Petersburg?

24 A. Not — I am not familiar with that number.

25 Q. Can I show you, please, Mr Popov’s report at {E5/16/69}.

1 disagree?

2 A. No. I disagree.

3 Q. And why do you disagree?

4 A. Because if there will be a demand, there will be

5 an increase in infrastructure. This is how the market

6 works. But the only problem is, is there berth and

7 access to the water; everything else is irrelevant.

8 Q. And if we go, please, to your DCF calculation again at

9 {E8/27/40}.

10 A. Okay.

11 Q. That revenue is based on a capacity turnover of 500,000

12 TEUs per annum, and an actual turnover of 420,000

13 per annum, isn’t it?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And have you done any sensitivity analysis on that

16 calculation if the throughput is only half that? If the

17 capacity is only 250,000 and the throughput is 210,000

18 TEUs per annum?

19 A. I don’t believe this is relevant.

20 Q. But have you carried out any sensitivity analysis in

21 relation to your DCF calculation for Western Terminal?

22 A. Not that way.

23 Q. You haven’t carried it out —

24 A. Not that way.

25 Q. And can you help his Lordship with what you think the

114 116
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 likely effect would be on the cash flow if the

2 throughput was half your assumption?

3 A. To say so, I need my computer, Excel file, and

4 calculate — how could I say. It’s not a linear

5 function.

6 Q. And could you be shown {E8/27/30}, please, which is,

7 again, in your Western Terminal report. You have

8 a heading, «Incremental Capacity Development» and you

9 say in the first sentence:

10 «According to the information memorandum …

11 reconstruction of Western Terminal, as a container trade

12 terminal, will require two years.»

13 If we go to {D52/889/17} you can see that the

14 information memorandum suggested three phases, starting

15 in May 2008, and if we go over the page, finishing

16 in March 2011. {D52/889/18}

17 A. This memorandum assumes the building of the third berth,

18 which we decide that, for an efficient operator, there

19 is no need. That’s why what we — what we, of course —

20 from the third stage, we, of course, assume that there

21 will be these cranes and equipment will be purchased,

22 but that could be purchased earlier, and we take that

23 into consideration.

24 Q. So you assume the full capacity projected by the

25 information memorandum, although not carrying out the

1 {E6/23.2/1}. It was the big map I handed up earlier.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I like that map and I am afraid

3 I have lost it — there we are.

4 MR LORD: I should have probably shown it to your Lordship

5 before. It is probably a bit late in coming.

6 Ms Simonova, if you look at the map of the port of

7 St Petersburg, you can see, can’t you, that

8 Western Terminal has very limited berth facility

9 compared with, for example, number 17, First Container

10 Terminal. First Container Terminal, which is the big

11 pink island, or the big pink area immediately above the

12 Western Terminal, you can see just how much access to

13 the sea that terminal has; whereas the Western Terminal

14 just has berth 15, doesn’t it, and a very small berth 16

15 that’s more like a jetty.

16 Isn’t it right, Ms Simonova, that Western Terminal

17 is actually very short of berth space in order to be

18 able to have a high turnover of loading and unloading?

19 A. First of all, berth number 15 is big enough, and this

20 investment assumes total reconstruction of berth

21 number 16, making it bigger, and the terminal could

22 accept a lot of cargoes.

23 Q. The information memorandum at {D52/889/30} contains some

24 information about the storage period for these

25 containers. Do you see that, Ms Simonova?

117 119

1 third stage; is that right?

2 A. Without third berth.

3 Q. Can we go to your DCF calculation again, please

4 {E8/27/40}.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Can I just straighten in my mind

6 something? As I understand what you are saying, the

7 capacity of a port in terms of TEUs will be a function

8 of at least two factors: one is the size, in acreage or

9 hectare terms; the other is the level of infrastructural

10 investment, if you like; is that right?

11 A. We assumed that all that investment will be made, of

12 course. The capacity could not be achieved with —

13 paving the land, reconstruct the berth, and there is

14 also the assumption of the electrical power station,

15 transformer power station.

16 So we take all that into consideration. We did our

17 own, almost our own calculations of all of that, and we

18 take this — you could see capital cost line. We

19 subtract that in the first year, where we don’t operate

20 at all, and the operation started from the second year,

21 from half the capacity, and this is why the second year

22 investment is higher, because this is where we have to

23 finish all these expenditures.

24 MR LORD: Ms Simonova, on that point, if you look at the map

25 again, the big map of the port of St Petersburg,

1 A. Yes, I see.

2 Q. Can you see in the second paragraph it says as follows:

3 «The main constraint will be the lack of storage

4 space in the early months (the concrete laying having

5 not been completed), as only 1.2 hectares will be

6 available. This is based on containers being stored for

7 an average of 10 days to a maximum of 5 containers

8 high.»

9 Can you see that? Then it goes on to give some

10 further predictions about the cranes that are going to

11 be used and the maximum operating speed of them; can you

12 see that?

13 So, Ms Simonova, have you carried out any analysis

14 to support an input of shorter than ten days for the

15 storage of the container?

16 A. Yes, we did. I want to remind you that the investment

17 memorandum was done in 2008, and our appraisal date is

18 2012. At that time, the speed of how the containers

19 were turning over was, in the market, much higher.

20 Q. Could you go, please, to {E8/27/40}, which is your DCF

21 calculation.

22 A. Mm hmm.

23 Q. And, again, did you carry out any sensitivity analysis

24 to test how that calculation would alter if the capital

25 expenditure required to bring Western Terminal into the

118 120
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 state that you are suggesting it should be brought into, 1 up Mr Millard’s report at {E7/25/11}, please, or perhaps
2 if that was actually going to be $220 million, as in 2 it could be handed to you. At paragraph 2.5, Mr Millard
3 the information memorandum, rather than the figure of 3 sets out some comments on your cash flow calculation.
4 about $104 million that you use in this calculation? 4 Ms Simonova, have you considered Mr Millard’s
5 A. Why should we ever analyse 220 million when we 5 comments on your DCF calculation set out in this report?
6 considered that 104 million for the reasonably efficient 6 A. Yes, I read that.
7 operator is enough? 7 Q. Mr Millard finds it difficult to understand how you have
8 Business could do everything they want. The real 8 calculated the terminal value. Can you explain to his
9 business could develop this terminal the way they want. 9 Lordship, going back to your calculation, how you have
10 Appraisers have to look at what they did, analyse what 10 calculated the terminal value?
11 they did, and if they don’t agree with what the minimum 11 A. You mean this table 19?
12 investment has to be to do, they correct that, and this 12 Q. Yes.
13 is what we did. So we didn’t analyse what will be, if 13 A. Well, we look at the revenue minus cost, which consists
14 investment will be 220 million. We didn’t need that. 14 of several points. We get EBITDA. Then we subtract the
15 Q. If you add in to the third forecast year additional 15 capital cost, calculate the discount factor, and get the
16 capital costs of, let’s say, $100 million, that’s going 16 discounted cash flow, and then we calculate the
17 to have a significant effect, isn’t it, on the alleged 17 reversionary year by taking the same revenue as the
18 value of the Western Terminal under this calculation? 18 fourth year cost, and again with the same EBITDA, and
19 A. If we will do such inappropriate thing, of course it 19 then we divide it into 15.5 per cent discount rate, and
20 will influence in a very negative way. But the terminal 20 get 284 million. Then we calculate the sum of
21 doesn’t need 100 million in the third year. 21 discounted cash flow plus the discounted reversionary
22 Q. No, but just bear with me for the calculation. If you 22 year.
23 put $100 million in the capital costs line for the third 23 Q. Yes, but can you explain what equation you have used to
24 year, with a discounting multiplier of 0.69, that is 24 come up with a figure of 284.64 million in the reversion
25 going to, isn’t it, lead to something like 25 year for the discounted cash flow? What are the inputs

121

1 minus $70 million having to be added into that

2 calculation?

3 A. 69.76.

4 Q. That’s right, 0.6975 x 100 is almost $70 million, so

5 that would mean in a third year, rather than a profit of

6 29.5, there would be a loss of about minus 40; is that

7 right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. So, in fact, the sum discounted cash flow would be

10 something like minus 86, not minus 16, wouldn’t it?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And that would mean that the market value, on your

13 calculation, would come down from 143; it would come

14 down, wouldn’t it, by another minus 70 million; is that

15 right? It would come down to 73 million, wouldn’t it?

16 A. Yes. But why would we assume the 100 million — what we

17 will use them for?

18 Q. Looking at — can I stay in that table. Looking at the

19 reversion year value, you have said in there that the

20 discounted cash flow is 284.6 million, haven’t you?

21 A. You mean in the reversionary year?

22 Q. Yes.

23 A. The capitalised income of that year gives us

24 284 million.

25 Q. Can you keep that page open, or if not, could you open

123

1 into that equation?

2 A. 44.119 divided by 15.5 — 0.155.

3 Q. 44 over 0.155? I just need to do the figure, sorry,

4 Ms Simonova. That’s your calculation?

5 A. Well, the difference because of the Excel file gives us

6 more exact numbers.

7 Q. And you have projected a period of five years, haven’t

8 you, or four years plus a reversion in the fifth year?

9 A. Mm hmm.

10 Q. Do you agree that if a longer period were to be taken

11 before you calculate the reversion year figure, the

12 value is going to reduce?

13 A. No, I disagree. I already told you this is pure

14 mathematics; it doesn’t matter how long is the forecast

15 period.

16 Q. Because you have to discount, don’t you, the nominal

17 terminal value by more; isn’t that right?

18 A. Well, I have to tell you, there is this Gordon formula

19 which is well known and used by everybody, and I used

20 that formula, and you could find it in any textbook on

21 appraisal.

22 Q. Have you carried out any sensitivity analysis to see how

23 the DCF value would be affected if you took a longer

24 forecast period.

25 A. 20 years ago I was looking on that with my first

122 124
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 appraisals, and I could — I make sure that if you are

2 doing the right thing, it’s always the same number.

3 Q. Can I ask you, Ms Simonova, please, about what, if any,

4 cross-checks you carried out when you were valuing

5 Western Terminal to make sure that you were coming up

6 with a robust market value? Did you take into account

7 any comparable sales transactions for land — sorry, any

8 sales transactions for land?

9 A. We were looking all over the world, from America to

10 Australia, trying to find out how does this work in

11 other countries. Usually the countries do not allow the

12 land in the ports to be privatised at all.

13 Q. Could you be shown —

14 A. Therefore, this situation with the Western Terminal is

15 unique, not because of that, but also because Russian

16 Government also changed that law, and they don’t allow

17 to privatise the terminals and the berth.

18 Q. Could you look — sorry.

19 A. Therefore, it’s very difficult to find any analogies

20 anywhere in the world.

21 Q. Could you be shown {E6/23/45}, please, which is

22 Mr Millard’s first report on Western Terminal. You can

23 see in the top paragraph, Mr Millard explains his

24 approach to valuing Western Terminal; can you see that,

25 Ms Simonova?

1 premium from the analysis of the land and terminal in

2 Russia. Therefore — but I understand why Mr Millard

3 did that. There were no comparables in big port of

4 St Petersburg, because this land is very rare. A lot of

5 land is still occupied by the government, by the

6 military companies, and therefore there is no any

7 comparable sales or any terminals that are on the market

8 in the big port of St Petersburg.

9 Using some regular land, I think this is incorrect.

10 Q. And you can see what he says in the third paragraph from

11 the bottom of that page. He says: {E6/23/45}

12 «I have not adopted a multiplier to EBITDA in my

13 valuation of Western Terminal. I am not aware of

14 evidence supporting such an approach, whilst,

15 additionally, berths in other markets are appraised on

16 the basis of land sale comparables as opposed to their

17 revenue generating potential. This is due to the large

18 array of uses to which berths and associated land are

19 put.»

20 Do you disagree with that? Do you disagree that

21 there is a large array of uses to which berths —

22 A. I disagree, and if in other markets the land appraised

23 on the basis of the value of — the terminal appraised

24 as the value of land, where is that evidence?

25 Q. Could you be shown {E7/25/14}, please. This is

125

1 A. Can I see that, you mean?

2 Q. Yes.

3 A. Yes, this is a piece of his report, yes.

4 Q. And what Mr Millard has done is to investigate the value

5 of industrial warehouse land in St Petersburg area, per

6 square metre, and then he has applied a premium to that

7 because that land has a port berth. That’s what he has

8 done, isn’t it?

9 A. Probably.

10 Q. And have you carried out any investigation yourself as

11 to whether or not Mr Millard has the right figures for

12 industrial warehouse land values, as he sets out in his

13 report?

14 A. I think Mr Millard — if you are asking about his

15 report?

16 Q. Yes.

17 A. — made several fundamental errors appraising

18 Western Terminal. First of all, he is applying to some

19 typical industrial land. As a person who grew up in

20 the Soviet Union, I could tell you there are solvent

21 industrial spaces in Leningradskaya Oblast that nobody

22 could use, that couldn’t be used as the alternative to

23 Western Terminal. The investor who wants to do the

24 transshipment business, he will not look at the other

25 industrial pieces in Leningradskaya Oblast and then add

127

1 Mr Millard’s second report on Western Terminal, and he

2 addresses your comments about the market benchmarks that

3 he has taken. Can you see in paragraph 2.6, Mr Millard

4 has looked at two other actual examples, and the first

5 one is Global Ports. Can you see that, Ms Simonova?

6 A. Mm hmm.

7 Q. I think Global Ports operates — is the First Container

8 Terminal company. Are you aware of Global Ports,

9 Ms Simonova, have you heard of it?

10 A. Yes, of course, I put it in my report.

11 Q. Do you agree it is the largest operator of berths and

12 port facilities in Russia?

13 A. Not only in Russia.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am so sorry, what page are we at?

15 MR LORD: It is my fault, {E7/25/14}.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: 14.

17 MR LORD: You can see, Ms Simonova, what Mr Millard says in

18 that paragraph. He has looked at Global Ports to try to

19 carry out a cross-check on his valuation; can you see

20 that?

21 A. Yes, I see what he is saying.

22 Q. And in the second to last paragraph on that page,

23 Mr Millard says that:

24 » … the share price of Global Ports … is $4.50

25 per share, giving it a market capitalisation … of

126 128
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 $859.76 million. It follows that Global Ports has

2 an existing EBITDA 8.52 times greater than the proposed

3 EBITDA of Western Terminal in its 5th year of operation

4 and a container throughput which is 6.42 times greater.»

5 If we go to {E7/25.1/13}, please, and it is the

6 bottom left.

7 Ms Simonova, I think Mr Millard exhibits this. This

8 is a Global Ports document, and it states its container

9 throughput capacity. Can you see 1.25 million TEUs per

10 year; can you see that?

11 A. Where?

12 Q. It’s at the bottom left-hand side. It is not very

13 clear.

14 A. Yes, all of it is so — it’s such a small …

15 Q. Maybe shrink it down a bit.

16 Can you see, Ms Simonova, if you go back to

17 Mr Millard’s report at {E7/25/14} on to {E7/25/15},

18 Mr Millard has tried to calculate the value of

19 Western Terminal by comparison with his analysis of

20 the Global Ports value. Can you see he has come out

21 with a figure of US$100 million at the top of the page;

22 can you see that?

23 A. 100 million, I could see.

24 Q. Do you want to comment on that?

25 A. Well, I could give a lot of comments. First of all, the

1 big company that operates all over the world, not just

2 in Russia but in Finland and in other countries. The

3 economics of other countries of course have a huge

4 influence on all the revenues and the costs, and so

5 these things are not comparable with one small terminal

6 in the big port of St Petersburg. So that’s the second

7 reason why you couldn’t compare this.

8 Q. But, Ms Simonova — sorry.

9 A. The third thing is — can you go to this other page?

10 {E7/25/15}. Now, when you take the EBITDA and you

11 consider it as an appraisal, but this is the business,

12 this is the shares. Some shares could have much higher

13 value because investors believe in those shares, they

14 are ready to pay for the shares. Shares is

15 an absolutely different regulation. I don’t understand

16 how could you do that.

17 The third is this calculation of the terminal, this

18 is not a sensitivity model because the five-year — you

19 couldn’t pull over one terminal a year from an entire

20 model and change the numbers the way you want.

21 That’s — there is no any logic in doing that.

22 Thank you.

23 Q. If you go to {E7/25/16}, you will see that Mr Millard

24 took us, as another benchmark, to the port of Brisbane.

25 Can you see that? The top paragraph?

129 131

1 capitalisation of shares. It’s a business valuation,

2 and in the business valuation we are using net profit

3 after tax.

4 Q. And Mr Millard goes on then to identify that, with

5 capital expenditure of $104 million, which I think is

6 what you suggest would have to be carried out to get

7 Western Terminal into a container position, that capital

8 expenditure would exceed the value of the land derived

9 in this way; can you see that is what he says?

10 A. The second — on {E7/25/14}?

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. I’m confused, sorry, what page are we on?

13 Q. I’m trying to allow you to comment on the response of

14 Mr Millard, to your criticism of him.

15 A. Then let’s go back to that other page where he showed to

16 us that this is the shares, and I already told you that

17 this is the business valuation we were doing as the

18 appraisal. Therefore, you couldn’t compare these

19 things. It’s non comparable things. Mr Steadman was

20 hired to do a business valuation, and I was hired to do

21 asset valuation.

22 Q. And if you go, please, to {E7/25/16} —

23 A. Secondly — can I finish?

24 Q. Yes, sorry, I thought you had.

25 A. The other thing is that Global Ports, it’s true, a big,

1 A. The top, in the top?

2 Q. Yes. The port of Brisbane was sold in 2010 by the

3 Government of Queensland to a consortium for

4 US$1.9 billion for a 99-year lease, for a port which

5 includes —

6 A. Yes, I see that.

7 Q. You can see that what Mr Millard has done is he has

8 tried to work out what would have been the price per

9 berth; can you see that?

10 A. Yes, I see, and I could say that it’s very close to my

11 valuation. Look, two berths was $130 million. My

12 valuation gives $149 million. For that rule of thumb,

13 for that, he’s given to the fact that very, very general

14 thing, this just proves that my valuation is right.

15 Q. He is suggesting, isn’t he, the opposite, actually?

16 Isn’t he suggesting that if you take a terminal value of

17 130 million, and you put it into a DCF calculation —

18 A. Well, he, again, trying to — I would say sorry for

19 saying that, but it’s like playing with numbers. You

20 couldn’t just pull the piece of the model and change the

21 numbers the way you want. What this deal tells me, that

22 two — the two berths will cost $100 million

23 and Mr Millard mentioned that. And so my appraisal,

24 $149 million, it’s a very good proof, even though

25 I wouldn’t consider this in my report, but thank you,

130 132
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 Mr Millard. That has proved that I did the right thing.

2 Q. And it is right, isn’t it, Ms Simonova, that to get to

3 this value per berth, even on your valuation,

4 US$104 million would have to be spent, wouldn’t it?

5 A. Well, we subtract that investment —

6 Q. So you take that off?

7 A. We subtract that investment. We didn’t add it, we —

8 look, that’s why the cash flow is minus, because we

9 subtract the investment from the value.

10 Q. Ms Simonova, I think a moment ago you were agreeing this

11 might be a good, or certainly a, benchmark, I think

12 a minute or two ago, and it is right, isn’t it, that if

13 that’s right —

14 A. I said I wouldn’t use it.

15 Q. If that’s right, you have to take off, on your view,

16 $104 million, don’t you, so you would take the value

17 down to something around about $25 million or

18 $26 million, wouldn’t you?

19 A. No. No, because if you want to subtract 104 million,

20 you have to add the benefit from that 104 million. The

21 benefit from 104 million is the fact that for that money

22 we build a completely new, modern terminal that operates

23 with the containers, and the value of this terminal is

24 100 — my number.

25 So we subtract that investment.

1 MR LORD: It’s appendix 5 to Mr Millard’s report of

2 2 November 2015. I’m not sure whether those are added

3 in at the back.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t want to cause unnecessary

5 diversion now, or paper destruction later, but I just —

6 MR LORD: I understand.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: In the report, the figures are very,

8 very high level.

9 MR LORD: Yes. Could we go — it’s on the screen now, could

10 we go to {E7/25.1/44}. We obviously will provide

11 your Lordship with it. I do apologise for it not being

12 there.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, no, it’s not your fault.

14 MR LORD: Your Lordship can see this is what Mr Millard

15 exhibited.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

17 MR LORD: Which explains about the port of Brisbane.

18 Ms Simonova, the port of Brisbane was, at this time,

19 the third busiest port in Australia, can you see that,

20 and the nation’s fastest growing container port?

21 A. Yes, I could see that, even though I never saw it

22 before.

23 Q. Could we look at that page and see its capacity and then

24 go over the page, please, {E7/25.1/45}, then to

25 {E7/25.1/46}.

133 135

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Does appendix 5 give any more sort of

2 detail as to this port of Brisbane, as to its position,

3 whether investment was required in it, whether it had

4 sustained losses in the past, whether there were some

5 problems with it? Do we know?

6 MR LORD: I think we have to go on to the {E7/25.1/43-46}

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: E7 …?

8 MR LORD: Yes, it’s in the margin, my Lord, at the top.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Everything is good with these

10 electronic — but the fact is, it’s not easy to —

11 MR LORD: We will arrange for your Lordship to have hard

12 copies.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I’m so sorry.

14 MR LORD: There will be a lot of them. We weren’t sure

15 whether your Lordship wanted to have the hard copies,

16 but we will obviously furnish your Lordship with —

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, I’m sorry, I didn’t realise the

18 extent to which they might illuminate it. I mean, if

19 they do illuminate it, do you have questions on that —

20 MR LORD: Perhaps we could have that on screen

21 {E7/25.1/43-46}. My Lord, I think it should be in

22 your Lordship’s — it should be in hard copy in a file.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Should it? In my big file?

24 MR LORD: No, the one today.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So sorry.

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Could we just go back, so sorry

2 {E7/25.1/45}. There’s some other terminal for

3 improvement, is there?

4 A. It says:

5 «The port of Brisbane is currently under a large

6 upgrade and extension…»

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: They are paying 100 million on

8 equipment, 50 million — this is Australian dollars —

9 on infrastructure. There’s another multi-user terminal

10 at the port of Brisbane which can accommodate the big

11 ships, because the bridge gets in the way of the big

12 ships at the port of Brisbane.

13 MR LORD: My Lord, could we go back to {E7/25.1/44}.

14 Ms Simonova, you can see the capacity of this port, and

15 if we just compare it to the Western Terminal. I wonder

16 if we could have up one of the aerial photographs. Keep

17 that on screen {D196/2931/8}.

18 A. Well, my Lord, can I mention something?

19 Q. Ms Simonova, what I wanted to ask you to do, really, was

20 to compare the Western Terminal site with this port of

21 Brisbane site, and ask you whether you want to revise in

22 any way your opinion as to the value of

23 the Western Terminal land? You can’t really — the

24 Western Terminal site is of a much lower quality, isn’t

25 it, and much lower potential than this port of Brisbane

134 136
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 port?

2 A. Well, what I could see is that this Australian port also

3 is undergoing some major infrastructure improvements,

4 required that, and still they — it was bought for $65

5 per berth.

6 So if it will be appraised by Mr Millard, it will be

7 significantly — sold for significantly less money.

8 So there are some similarities in the fact that the

9 port was bought and the port that requires investment,

10 and there is — I don’t see the reason to really look at

11 my appraisal.

12 Q. Could you be shown, please, {E8/27/27} which is a page

13 from your report on the Western Terminal, and you go

14 through a number of possible uses of

15 the Western Terminal. In paragraph 2 you say this, in

16 the last sentence, dealing with coal and timber and ore.

17 In the last sentence you say:

18 «Starting in 2009, when export taxes on raw timber

19 were increased, exports of raw timber declined and in my

20 opinion it is not a viable long term option.»

21 Can you see that?

22 A. Yes, that’s why I choose container as the highest and

23 best use of the terminal. We analyse very deeply all

24 these possible uses of the terminal, and came to

25 the conclusion that containers are the best,

1 Can you see that? Can you read that paragraph:

2 «The necessary permits to undertake the development

3 have been applied for and an initial meeting with

4 Rosmorport, the relevant Russian authority, went very

5 well. The necessary permits are expected to be granted

6 by both the Ministry of Transport, of which Rosmorport

7 is part, the Port Authority of St Petersburg, and other

8 regulatory authorities. A commitment to the channel

9 dredging and reclamation is expected to be made by

10 Rosmorport, as part of the approval process.»

11 Can you see that?

12 A. Mm hmm.

13 Q. It is right, isn’t it, Ms Simonova, that in order to

14 turn Western Terminal into a container terminal, that

15 would have needed a significant amount of permission and

16 approval from Russian public bodies?

17 A. But not exactly. This paragraph you pointed out makes

18 it absolutely clear that the relevant Russian authority

19 agreed to give all the permissions.

20 Furthermore, I didn’t put it into my report, but

21 I have seen by my own eyes the very special programme

22 that the Russian authorities developed to further

23 develop a container for the big port of St Petersburg.

24 And the Russian port authorities, they are very clear.

25 For example, they will do their — they will do dredging

137 139

1 independently from Mr Bromley-Martin.

2 Q. Would it be fair to say, Ms Simonova, that it was only

3 really container use, in your opinion, that would invest

4 real value into this Western Terminal land? Looking at

5 that page and looking at your assessment of that option?

6 A. No. No, no, this is not what I am saying here. What

7 I am saying is the containers will be the best, but if

8 it will be used for oil, for export oil, for bunker

9 fuel, it also could be very useful, and as far as I know

10 right now, right now this terminal is used for the

11 bunker fuel where the company who operates the terminal

12 supplying bunker fuel to all other boats in the port.

13 Also they are exporting oil, so — the container is the

14 best, but there could be the other uses.

15 Q. And in order to get Western Terminal into a state where

16 it could be a container terminal, it was going to need

17 significant investment, wasn’t it? I think on your view

18 at least US$100 million?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And could you be shown, please, {D52/889/7}, which is

21 an extract from the information memorandum.

22 A. Can you make it a little bigger? Thank you.

23 Q. You can see, Ms Simonova, about halfway down the page

24 there is a paragraph that starts:

25 «The necessary permits …»

1 by themselves. They want to develop the port as much as

2 they can, and they are really ready to give all the

3 permits and this sentence does state so.

4 Q. Ms Simonova, are you aware that Dr Arkhangelsky has

5 given some evidence about certain payments that he made

6 to a Russian official in relation to his port business,

7 including Western Terminal?

8 A. No, I don’t know anything about that.

9 Q. If, in order to develop the Western Terminal, monies had

10 to be paid to Russian officials in order to secure their

11 agreement to that development, that would inject a level

12 of risk into any development of the Western Terminal,

13 wouldn’t it?

14 A. Well, it’s hard for me to talk about that. It has

15 nothing to do with my appraisal.

16 Q. No, but if —

17 A. Let the court decide about that.

18 Q. There would be the uncertainty, wouldn’t there, of

19 whether a purchaser would secure the necessary permits

20 and approvals; that would be a risk factor, wouldn’t it?

21 A. I don’t know anything about that.

22 Q. No, but just assume hypothetically that that was part

23 of — that that was likely to be a feature of

24 the development of the Western Terminal, in other words

25 that you have to make various payments to secure the

138 140
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 cooperation from various important public bodies. Just

2 assume that. I’m asking you to consider whether you

3 agree that that would inject a level of risk and

4 uncertainty into any project development of

5 Western Terminal?

6 A. What I’ve seen is this document that granted a very

7 serious support to any investment that’s done in the big

8 port of St Petersburg.

9 Also, I read a different information on the internet

10 that big port of St Petersburg got the highest

11 investment in the — compared to St Petersburg itself,

12 and so I really don’t know anything about necessity to

13 pay Russian authorities and I couldn’t comment on that,

14 never heard about that. All I saw is the document where

15 they are stating that they will — they have this

16 programme development and they will stimulate that

17 development.

18 Q. And if payments of that type probably would have to be

19 paid, wouldn’t that inject some uncertainty as to

20 the potential cost of developing Western Terminal into

21 a container terminal?

22 A. I don’t think so. Of course, the project has to be

23 exist, and I think it did exist, and I even saw the

24 drawings, and if the meetings with Russian authorities

25 went really well, what is the problem to go forward?

1 A. I am an appraiser and I am doing what’s in my liability

2 and authority to do.

3 Q. I understand. Could you be shown in your report,

4 please, {E8/26/30}. This is not your Western Terminal

5 report; it’s a report you have given on other

6 properties. I really wanted to pick up what you say in

7 paragraph 4, and I stress that this is not a report on

8 Western Terminal, it’s a report on other assets. Can

9 you see what you say in paragraph 4:

10 «During 2007 and into the first half of 2008, prices

11 in general increased to what were to prove to be

12 unsustainable levels…»

13 Can you see that? Then if you could read on,

14 please, the rest of the page?

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Where are we?

16 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, paragraph 4.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: In?

18 MR LORD: {E8/26/30}, which is a report of Ms Simonova in

19 your Lordship’s bundle.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

21 A. Yes, what is the question?

22 MR LORD: I think from that, Ms Simonova, you would agree

23 that from some time in the second half of 2008, real

24 estate prices fell significantly as a result of what’s

25 called the credit crash, or the banking crisis; would

141

1 Q. Do you not also agree that if those types of payments

2 were going to be made, or may potentially need to be

3 made, that would inject uncertainty as to whether

4 a project developer could raise finance against the

5 Western Terminal project?

6 A. Well, this is like so theoretical question.

7 Q. Right.

8 A. And to answer that question, I have to study that issue

9 to understand what are you talking about. So I don’t

10 know how to answer.

11 Q. If you could be shown {E6/23.2/1}, please, it is the big

12 map again of the port of St Petersburg. Do you agree,

13 Ms Simonova, that there was a limited pool of buyers for

14 some extra port capacity in the port of St Petersburg

15 back in 2012?

16 A. I don’t know anything about that.

17 Q. Would you also agree that someone looking to develop the

18 Western Terminal into a container terminal, costing, on

19 your opinion, $104 million, would be likely to want to

20 finance that project with project finance? In other

21 words, they would not be putting in their own money, or

22 certainly not all their own money?

23 A. Concerning the project finance, I would suggest to ask

24 Mr Bromley-Martin.

25 Q. Yes. I understand.

143

1 you agree?

2 A. There was some effect on the banking — of the banking

3 crisis in — it started from America, and then it came

4 to the Russian Federation. But that was a sufficiently

5 short period of time.

6 Q. If you could be shown, please, Mr Millard’s report,

7 {E6/23/45}. Mr Millard in his first report gave some

8 evidence, Ms Simonova, about the market generally in

9 Russia in 2009 and following. Can you see that?

10 A. Mm hmm.

11 Q. In the second to last paragraph he says this:

12 «A key element in this, and indeed all valuations in

13 2009 in Russia, is to understand and reflect the extent

14 to which the market was affected by the global financial

15 downturn. The changes in the market dynamics on the

16 pan-European level were mirrored in Russia: ie there was

17 a flight to quality and therefore developers and

18 investors preferred to deal in the less risky and more

19 mature markets of Moscow and St Petersburg.»

20 Do you see that?

21 A. Mm hmm.

22 Q. And in the last paragraph he says this:

23 «A number of distressed assets had appeared on the

24 market in the first half of 2009.»

25 Then if you just read the end of that page, and if

142 144
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 we go over the page to {E6/23/46}, please. Just read

2 down the first half. (Pause)

3 A. Back one page. {E6/23/45}

4 Q. Mr Millard is identifying at least two different

5 features there. One is that there was a flight to

6 quality, so in other words, investors wanted to invest

7 in prime assets; would you agree with that, Ms Simonova,

8 that in 2009, that’s what happened?

9 A. Well, the American banking crisis of course affected the

10 Russian Federation. They were difficult times, and the

11 investment could afford the better quality of assets,

12 that’s absolutely true.

13 Q. And he also makes the point that bank lending all but

14 dried up at that time; in other words banks were

15 stopping lending, and that was particularly true of

16 commercial real estate financing programmes; do you

17 agree with that?

18 A. As a general rule of thumb, probably yes. But because

19 banks making money on loans, if they will stop give

20 loans at all, how could they survive?

21 Q. And if you look at {E6/23/47}, Mr Millard sets out what

22 he describes as «Major investment market trends»; can

23 you see that, Ms Simonova?

24 A. Mm hmm. Yes, I see.

25 Q. And if you look at the bullet points in the middle of

1 Q. If there’s anything that — if you disagree with what

2 Mr Millard there is saying. You can see what he has

3 done: he has taken his 2009 value and he has brought it

4 forward to reflect a recovery between June 2009

5 and September 2012, and he has gauged that at some

6 68 per cent growth in values, and that’s how he gets up

7 to his 2012 value.

8 I know you have discussed these with him, but I just

9 want to remind you of how he arrives at his values,

10 really, before I ask you a question. Can you just,

11 perhaps, read {E6/23/48} and then over the page when you

12 have finished that, to {E6/23/49}.

13 A. Well, because I don’t agree in general with the approach

14 that uses the — some average industrial land, plus

15 100 per cent adjustment, because when in appraisal we

16 have 100 per cent adjustment, we saying — we don’t

17 consider that a comparable.

18 Therefore, there is nothing to comment from me.

19 I just didn’t agree with this approach.

20 Q. I understand. Would it be fair, Ms Simonova, really to

21 say that your disagreement with Mr Millard is as to his

22 whole approach, rather than, if he is right about the

23 approach, the way he has gone about doing that; would

24 that be fair? Your disagreement is about the approach

25 he has applied, rather than the application of that

145 147
1 the page, do you want to read those and then tell his 1 approach, if that is the right approach?
2 Lordship if you have any comments to make on any of 2 A. I consider that the approach he used is not applicable
3 those points Mr Millard makes, whether you agree or 3 in this situation. Plus I think that the — you are to
4 disagree or don’t have any opinion on them? (Pause) 4 tell me that he is somehow indexing the value from 2008?
5 A. Well, if we are talking about general trends, I agree. 5 Q. From 2009, yes.
6 I don’t understand what the relevance is in shifting 6 A. That’s also wrong, because in the real estate market we
7 between Moscow and St Petersburg. But probably if you 7 have to look what’s going on there today, in 2012. Only
8 take in general, that’s all true. 8 for some very small, insufficient assets, sometimes we
9 Q. And you can see what Mr Millard says at the bottom of 9 could indexate, and when there is not enough — when
10 the page. He refers to his table above, but he says: 10 there is no other approach.
11 «This table is misleading, as in my experience in 11 But in the case of 2012 year, he could use —
12 the Russian real estate market, purchaser sentiment fell 12 evaluate it as trade related property and get
13 quickly and dramatically from Q3 2008 until the end of 13 a sufficient number.
14 2009, before beginning a slow period of recovery from 14 Q. If we could go to {E6/23/51}. Mr Millard sets out his
15 the second quarter of 2010.» 15 valuations for Western Terminal at the two dates he was
16 Do you have any reason to disagree with that opinion 16 asked to value on. The first is at as 1 June 2009, and
17 of Mr Millard’s? 17 he values the Western Terminal at $11.85 million, or
18 A. If we are talking about real estate in general, I agree. 18 RUB 367 million.
19 Q. If we go over the page to {E6/23/48}, you can see how 19 Ms Simonova, I don’t think you have carried out
20 Mr Millard has worked out his 2012 valuation for 20 a value, have you, at 2009? I may be mistaken, let me
21 Western Terminal. You can see that he has made 21 just —
22 a 30 per cent reduction from asking prices; he has taken 22 A. I didn’t.
23 a premium because it is berth land. You can see what he 23 Q. No, that’s right. So would it be fair to say that you
24 says on that page. 24 have no reason, apart from your disagreement with his
25 A. Well, you want me to give my comments? 25 approach — well, do you want to say anything about
146 148
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 Mr Millard’s opinion that the right market value of

2 the Western Terminal as at June 2009 was

3 US$11.8 million?

4 A. I think this number is very, very undervaluing the value

5 of Western Terminal. This is the very good location for

6 the terminal, and the value has to be significantly

7 higher.

8 I couldn’t tell you how much, because I didn’t do

9 the appraisal, but if Mr Millard will use the right

10 approach, I am sure he will get much higher value.

11 Q. And looking at his valuation as at September 2012, you

12 can see on that page he says he thinks it’s about

13 US$21.37 million, or RUB 695.955 million.

14 Again, Ms Simonova, can I suggest to you that

15 Mr Millard is right and that those are the right figures

16 for the market value of Western Terminal as

17 at September 2012?

18 A. I disagree.

19 Q. And could you be shown {D20/407/1}. Ms Simonova,

20 {D20/407/1} is the purchase contract by which

21 Western Terminal was acquired by the OMG group

22 in May 2007; can you see that?

23 A. Mm hmm.

24 Q. And May 2007 was when land prices were starting to reach

25 their highest; would you agree? It was about a year

1 MR LORD: My Lord, would that be a convenient point to have

2 a short break?

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I don’t mean to pressurise you.

4 I am just wondering about time.

5 MR LORD: Well, Mr Stroilov and Ms Simonova very helpfully

6 said that they could be available on Monday. There are

7 witnesses in the morning, but they could be interposed.

8 Mr Stroilov doesn’t promote that course, but very

9 helpfully said that if that was necessary, he would

10 accept that, and the witness very helpfully said that

11 she would also be available.

12 So, my Lord, in my submission, I have a fair bit to

13 go. I think I will pick up speed because I have covered

14 a lot of matters in general and in relation to

15 Western Terminal, but I would be putting to

16 the witness — and I won’t go through all the stages

17 again; I will try and take it a bit more shortly.

18 But I may have another, possibly, two to three

19 hours. So if we had another hour today, or thereabouts,

20 no more than that, and I would try and pare things down

21 so we would definitely finish within an hour and a half

22 or so on Monday.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I was trying to make arrangements so

24 that I could carry on until 5.15 pm, but I would prefer

25 not to, unless thereby we could complete.

149 151

1 from the crash, would that be fair? Just over a year

2 from the financial crash?

3 A. No, I think the prices for land was high all the way

4 until August 2008.

5 Q. And the price that was paid, if you go, please, to

6 page 2 of that {D20/407/2}, and clause 1.3, the price

7 that was paid to buy Western Terminal back in May 2007

8 was RUB 1.069 billion; can you see that?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And were you aware that that was the price which was

11 paid when Western Terminal was acquired in 2007?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Is that the first time you have seen that figure?

14 A. Yes, I’ve never seen this contract.

15 Q. And wouldn’t you agree that the purchase price paid by

16 OMG in May 2007 for Western Terminal would be a relevant

17 consideration when assessing the value of

18 Western Terminal at a later date?

19 A. All I could say is that this 2007 date is far away from

20 my 2012 date of appraisal, and looks like OMG have

21 a good deal here. But I couldn’t — I don’t know how

22 much was the market value, and the — according to IVS

23 standards, market value is not the same as the price

24 that was achieved, will be achieved, or could be

25 achieved in some real deal.

1 MR LORD: My Lord, I am afraid we can’t complete, and as

2 I said, I will be quicker for the remaining points, but

3 the Western Terminal was the big one, but there are

4 a number of properties which I think I need to cover and

5 they have their own points —

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m not at all critical, I think there

7 is a lot to cover, but that gives me my answer. We will

8 go on this evening until either a natural break — or

9 a natural collapse, as it were — and revert at a time,

10 which you can discuss, on Monday, but which will be

11 early in any event because of Professor Guriev’s

12 commitments.

13 MR LORD: Yes, I think the plan is that Mr Turetsky and

14 Professor Guriev will come fairly early on Monday and

15 then there will be some time later on Monday to complete

16 Ms Simonova.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But from listings’ point of view, it’s

18 probably 9.30 am on Monday?

19 MR LORD: I fear so, my Lord, yes.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Very good. Ten minutes.

21 (3.28 pm)

22 (A short break)

23 (3.40 pm)

24 MR LORD: Ms Simonova, could you be shown {E8/27/41}, which

25 is where you set out your opinion on the value of

150 152
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 the Western Terminal, and you allocate value between

2 berth 15 and the land plot, don’t you?

3 A. Yes, I allocate the — I consider that the proper

4 approach is to value all the group of assets with their

5 synergistic value, and then because the assignment was

6 to say how much is the land and the berth, I allocate

7 part of the value to the berth and to the land.

8 Q. It is right, isn’t it, that you don’t ascribe any

9 separate value to berth number 16 in its undeveloped

10 state?

11 A. Because it is included into the value of the land.

12 Q. And can I suggest that in its undeveloped state,

13 berth 16 did not add any material value into that site?

14 A. That’s not true.

15 Q. And we’ve seen that the acquisition price for

16 Western Terminal was $40 million in 2007. Your evidence

17 is that the value of Western Terminal by September 2012

18 had gone up to US$143 million; is that right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And can I suggest that, given the intervening financial

21 crash, and the effect that had on property values, it is

22 quite implausible that the Western Terminal land could

23 have gone up in value in that way over that period?

24 A. I didn’t state that the land increased in value, and

25 what I am stating: this is the value of the terminal.

1 example. Let’s imagine we are dealing with some

2 building that could be rented. How we will value that

3 building? That building will be valued in accordance to

4 how much rent could it collect and what is the cost that

5 the owner will spend, and we will capitalise that EBITDA

6 income.

7 If we are talking about the company that owned that

8 business, that building is one item on the long term

9 assets on the balance sheet, but the balance sheet have

10 the short term assets, the accounts receivables, the

11 accounts payables, and then it has the shares.

12 And so this is the fundamental difference between

13 the asset value and the business value. So in that

14 regard, do I understand correctly you want to know what

15 was the business value of some companies?

16 Q. I am just asking you whether or not, as part of a market

17 value of Western Terminal site, market value of the real

18 estate, you need to strip out any value that’s to do

19 with non real estate factors in this case?

20 A. What factors?

21 Q. So you attribute all the income value — all of that

22 should be attributed to the market value of the land; is

23 that right?

24 A. Well, to make it clear, according to international

25 standards, the improvements that attach to the land have

153

1 Q. I see.

2 A. Land is just one of the assets. And then nobody

3 appraised it in 2007 when it was bought, so I couldn’t

4 give any comments on what was the value at that time,

5 and how much it’s changed since 2007.

6 Q. And how, if at all, would you apportion the value of

7 the land compared with the value of the terminal in your

8 2012 assessment?

9 A. I think that the berth and the land have almost the same

10 as we’ve seen in the appraisal weight. So for any owner

11 of the berth, it’s feasible to work with the owner of

12 the land if there are different owners, because then, if

13 they work together, that maximises their profit. That’s

14 why we allocate 50 per cent to the land, 50 per cent to

15 two berths, and then we give 50 per cent of the two

16 berths to one berth, and that’s why we show that the

17 value on one berth. That was the assignment: tell us

18 the value of one berth and the rest, assets.

19 Q. But I thought you were answering the question as to

20 whether you allocate some value to the business aspects

21 of Western Terminal, if I can put it that way, separate

22 from the land itself, the land and the berths; do you

23 see what I mean?

24 A. If you wanted to understand the difference between

25 business value and asset value, I could give you this

155

1 to be appraised together with the land. So since we

2 don’t have the list of assets and the task was: give us

3 the value of the terminal attributed to the land, this

4 is what I did.

5 So I put all the asset value to the value of

6 the land, which is the standard practice in appraising

7 assets. It meets the requirements of IVS.

8 Q. But, Ms Simonova, do you not need to split the cash flow

9 that you have calculated between the business and the

10 physical assets themselves? Do you not need to carry

11 out some sort of apportionment to attribute some of

12 the cash flow, some of the income, to what’s going to be

13 the business, if you like the goodwill and the

14 non-property real estate assets, and some of the cash

15 flow will be attributed to, if you like, the income

16 generated by the land itself?

17 A. I don’t think so. If you are doing business valuation,

18 you have a different set of procedures. This is the

19 conclusion. It looks — the name DCF used in

20 the business valuation and in the asset valuation, but

21 it’s — economically it’s absolutely different things.

22 You appraise in business, you have to look at the

23 balance sheet. As I told you, there is accounts

24 receivable, accounts payable, all that other things that

25 has to be determined and valued, and that will be the

154 156
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 value of the business.

2 When you are talking about assets, you are looking

3 at income potential of the assets, and you look at the

4 assets the way you look at any building that you are

5 renting. There is no difference.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: My understanding is that on an asset

7 valuation of an economically productive asset, what you

8 are looking for is what a reasonable — or what you say

9 you would be looking for is what a purchaser in

10 a willing vendor/willing purchaser situation, and

11 assuming that the purchaser has the money to purchase,

12 would pay for the benefit of owning that asset.

13 A. Of course. The purchaser, of course, looking at also

14 the income generating potential of that assets.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, that would affect what he or she

16 or it is prepared to pay, because most people will go

17 into this on the basis of some future profit.

18 A. Yes.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That is different from a business, you

20 say, because the business valuation will incorporate all

21 sorts of other parameters, some negative, some positive,

22 which is why even property companies trade sometimes at

23 a considerable discount to asset value, and sometimes at

24 a considerable premium to asset value, depending on what

25 their other activities may be. Do I have it right?

1 is — because that are under the customs. They don’t

2 have licences and they couldn’t drive on the street.

3 So this terminal is very close, 50 metres. We

4 probably see the movie how they are driving from the

5 boat to the terminal, where in the entrance the customs

6 authorities checking the data on every car, and as we

7 know from factual data, cars was coming twice a week.

8 The time that you need to unload is very short, because

9 staying by the berth is very expensive for the boat.

10 But the two weeks’ shifts — no, no, no, two times

11 shifts, they only took two days a week. What is the

12 boat doing the rest of the time? To be more efficient,

13 you could unload something else. Then why do you need

14 to put cars right next to the boat? If you put next to

15 the boat, you couldn’t unload anything else.

16 So as a specialist and appraiser, what I have to say

17 is that this 50 metres from the boat is a very good idea

18 to do this ro-ro terminal. They use it most

19 efficiently.

20 Q. Can we look, Ms Simonova, before we explore that last

21 answer, please, at the layout of Onega Terminal. If you

22 look at the big map, again, {E6/23.2/1} you have the

23 overall layout. And if you could have up on the screen,

24 please, {D71/1066/21} which is an extract from the

25 KIT Finance information memorandum in 2008 in relation

157 159

1 A. Yes, my Lord, you are absolutely right.

2 MR LORD: Ms Simonova, could I ask you, please, now, about

3 the Onega Terminal and your valuation of that. Could

4 you go in your first report to {E8/26/78}, which is

5 where I think you have first set out in this case your

6 opinion on the Onega Terminal market value.

7 Ms Simonova, you assess the Onega Terminal as

8 a trade related property, don’t you?

9 A. Yes, I do.

10 Q. And if you go to {E8/26/82}, you can see your

11 description of the Onega Terminal, and you can see what

12 you say in the third paragraph:

13 «The terminal is an integrated facility designed for

14 transshipment and storage of cars and containers.»

15 Can you see that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. It’s right, isn’t it, that in order for that business to

18 be carried on from the Onega Terminal land, it would

19 need to have access to the sea and to berths, wouldn’t

20 it?

21 A. Not exactly. Even the opposite. What’s important is

22 that there are, like, 50 metres from the berth to

23 the terminal. Therefore, the cars doesn’t — when they

24 ro-ro, driving the car, they don’t cross any highway or

25 road or anything that they shouldn’t cross, because this

1 to alleged raising of finance.

2 You can see, if we have, please, {D71/1066/21} and

3 we have {D71/1066/23} on screen, and then we will go

4 back to the other one, if we may, these are both

5 extracts from that same information memorandum.

6 Now, Ms Simonova, it is right, isn’t it, that

7 Onega Terminal is there shown in the red hatching,

8 crossing the yellow land owned by Sea Fishing Port

9 above; isn’t that right?

10 A. I could see that, yes.

11 Q. And if one keeps open page 21 and has the big map

12 {E6/23.2/1} on the screen, please, and blows up the big

13 map, please, on the bottom left-hand side, if we can.

14 Thank you.

15 Ms Simonova, you can see that the Onega Terminal

16 land that we are talking about does not have its own

17 access to a berth, does it? The berths are at P1, P2,

18 P3 and so on, aren’t they?

19 A. I already explained to you, they don’t need.

20 Q. No, it’s not really whether they need it or not. Could

21 you just answer the question whether you agree that the

22 Onega Terminal land that you valued did not have, on its

23 own site, access to a berth?

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You mean did not have a berth on its

25 own land?

158 160
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 MR LORD: Sorry, did not have a berth on its own land, yes.

2 A. No, they access, because they have access, but the berth

3 was owned by some other company.

4 Q. Yes. So the Onega Terminal had to use a berth on

5 another person’s land, didn’t it?

6 A. I already said so. Yes. I already said so.

7 Q. And you can see on the port map that the Onega Terminal

8 site is not coloured in at all; can you see that? It’s

9 just in a cream colour?

10 A. It’s just a scheme, it’s not a map.

11 Q. Right. But, Ms Simonova, going back to your report at

12 {E8/26/82}, if we can keep up the big …:

13 «The terminal is an integrated facility designed for

14 transshipment and storage of cars and containers.»

15 I suggest, Ms Simonova, that you can’t describe

16 Onega Terminal as an integrated facility without taking

17 account of the fact that it doesn’t have its own berths.

18 A. I disagree, and I explained why.

19 Q. Because if you are carrying out a market valuation of

20 the land, the Onega Terminal land, that land does not

21 include a berth, does it?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So if a purchaser comes along and considers buying

24 Onega Terminal land plot for port use, that land does

25 not include a berth; that’s right, isn’t it?

1 {E7/24/38} where he deals with Onega Terminal, he notes

2 this, about two paragraphs up from the bottom of

3 the page:

4 «It is important to note that in accordance with the

5 land title plans provided and used by both experts the

6 property does not have direct access to the wharf, and

7 is therefore dependent on a third party owner for

8 loading and unloading of cargo vessels.»

9 Do you agree with that statement by Mr Millard,

10 Ms Simonova?

11 A. It doesn’t have direct access to the berth.

12 Q. You agree with that?

13 A. But it sits in the port area, and the owner of the berth

14 will — I doubt he will refuse from making money from

15 bringing cars and reloading them. It’s very good money.

16 Q. But, Ms Simonova, isn’t the problem that if you buy

17 Onega Terminal, you don’t, as a result, gain access to

18 the wharf and the berth? It doesn’t — that vital

19 ingredient to run some sort of port business from

20 Onega Terminal, that’s missing from the Onega Terminal

21 land plot, isn’t it?

22 A. I don’t consider that a problem at all. What they need

23 is they need this space with very high quality paving,

24 and I have to tell you, maybe the weather in London

25 change every five minutes, but the weather in

161 163

1 A. Yes. It’s true.

2 Q. So can I suggest to you that you cannot, in those

3 circumstances, categorise the Onega land as a trade

4 related property in the way that you do?

5 A. That’s your opinion. I disagree.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am so ignorant: do you need a berth

7 for a ro-ro facility?

8 A. The boat has to be reloaded at the berth, that’s

9 absolutely true. Most important was the fact there are

10 50 metres from the berth to the space of the terminal

11 and, by the way, all these schemes are not correct.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You mean the plan? When you say

13 «schemes», what do you mean?

14 A. Because this is not a map: this is just a —

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Oh, I see, this.

16 A. — scheme. It shows that the terminal is here and the

17 berth is there, but there is this facility near the

18 berth, and the distance to the terminal is very short,

19 and that’s the most important.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You say this isn’t accurate and it’s

21 not to scale is what you are saying; is that right?

22 I don’t think it is suggested it is, really.

23 A. Yes.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It is just to help.

25 MR LORD: And so if we look at Mr Millard’s report at

1 St Petersburg is so terrible, it’s raining all the time,

2 and what’s important is to have this special paving that

3 could drain out all this water. Otherwise you couldn’t

4 use it as a ro-ro terminal.

5 Also it has to be absolutely straight, horizontal,

6 for this terminal, because the owners, the producers —

7 the car producers will never allow you to take these

8 cars to that space.

9 So the access is important, but I am sure that

10 a reasonably efficient operator will always work with

11 the owner of the terminal to make money for both.

12 Q. But, Ms Simonova, the owner of Sea Fishing Port site has

13 effectively got a ransom strip, hasn’t it, over the

14 running of a port facility from the Onega Terminal site?

15 The Sea Fishing Port man can stop any loading and

16 unloading into the Onega Terminal land, can’t he, as

17 things stand?

18 A. I am listening and reading and really don’t understand

19 your question.

20 Q. Well, put another way, the Onega Terminal site is

21 dependent upon access for loading and unloading being

22 accorded to the Onega Terminal site by another entity.

23 That’s right, isn’t it?

24 A. I don’t know anything about that. What I know is Onega

25 was operating, they were reloading the cars. I saw

162 164
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 the movie, how the boat came to the berth. I saw how

2 these drivers will drive —

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t think anyone has doubted that.

4 But what I think has been put to you is the

5 Sea Fishing Port owner has the quay, without which you

6 cannot access the value of your land. That’s what’s

7 being put, and he, it is being suggested, if your

8 operation in Onega is central, might charge

9 an increasing amount for the quay. I suspect that’s

10 what’s being put.

11 MR LORD: It is, my Lord, thank you.

12 A. Do you have any facts that he keep that quay and charge

13 money for that?

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: He may not want to charge so much that

15 you don’t operate at all, but he is just going to

16 bargain with you to see what the most he can get is,

17 which is going to erode your profit, I think. But

18 I mean, I am jumping ahead. That’s just as it appears

19 to me.

20 MR LORD: Also, if you own Onega Terminal land plot, you

21 can’t assume that you will have the ability to load and

22 unload, because the Sea Fishing Port may be using its

23 berths to full capacity for its own business, and it may

24 not want to let anyone else use the berths. They may be

25 using them for unloading and loading other cargo, and

1 Ms Simonova, Mr Popov is right, isn’t he, that

2 without the vital berth facility, Onega Terminal land is

3 just an ordinary industrial plot?

4 A. If he will be true, then I wouldn’t see a lot of cars on

5 the terminal when I visit it. Look at the photos in my

6 report. The terminal is full of cars. If you look at

7 the Google Earth photos, you also will see a lot of

8 photos, and this is in 2015, seven years later, after

9 the terminal was built. So why would that happen?

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, as I understand your evidence,

11 you lay stress on the proximity, 50 metres, to

12 the berth; yes?

13 A. It’s about, yes.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And it’s that which you are telling me

15 gives it value?

16 A. Yes. Exactly.

17 MR LORD: But, Ms Simonova, I think the point I am putting

18 to you is that you can’t suggest that, in terms of its

19 market value, a willing buyer is going to pay for

20 Onega Terminal on the basis that it is a container

21 shipment roll-on roll-off facility when it doesn’t have

22 its own berth and access to the sea? It is far too big

23 a risk, isn’t it, for a buyer to take? They are not

24 going to pay a huge amount of money just in the hope

25 that they get some deal with the neighbouring landowner;

165

1 they say to Onega Terminal: I’m sorry, you can’t load

2 and unload your cars or your containers using our berths

3 and our land. That’s a possibility, isn’t it?

4 A. Business operate on the basis of profit. Why would any

5 business refuse from additional profit? The fishing

6 activity is significantly cheaper than car

7 transshipment. So I can’t imagine any owner will be so

8 unreliable that to refuse from money.

9 Q. Could you be shown {E5/18/16}, please, which is

10 an extract from one of Mr Popov’s reports where he looks

11 at your approach and assumptions, Ms Simonova, in

12 relation to the Onega Terminal. He describes the

13 property at the top, four standalone warehouses and an

14 administrative building and three adjacent land plots.

15 Then he says in 5.2:

16 «I should mention that the subject site does not

17 include a berth, which is vital for any port facility.

18 OT outsources the berth located in the immediate

19 vicinity from an unrelated third party —

20 Sea Fishing Port of St Petersburg…

21 «It is my view that absence of own berth makes the

22 site no more than an ordinary industrial plot (which are

23 in abundance around the city and in the Port of

24 St Petersburg) with very little upside from its

25 proximity to the seashore.»

167

1 isn’t that right?

2 A. I disagree. Why to go to the neighbour and now invest

3 all this money that already was invested into the

4 development of this terminal, when it is already

5 developed and it is already operating, and it is working

6 together with the owners of the berth? Business people

7 generate money.

8 Q. Yes, but Ms Simonova, doesn’t that answer suggest that

9 the only real buyer would be Sea Fishing Port? They

10 would be in a very strong position, wouldn’t they, to

11 negotiate any terms on the basis that this was going to

12 be a functioning port facility. They hold the quay to

13 it and they can negotiate their price, can’t they?

14 A. I don’t know anything about that.

15 Q. Ms Simonova, I suggest that in relation to

16 Onega Terminal, what you have really done is to carry

17 out a business valuation of Onega Terminal and not

18 a market valuation of the land itself?

19 A. I appraised the income generated assets, trade related

20 property, and I already explained several times what is

21 the difference between asset appraisal and business

22 valuation.

23 Q. I suggest, Ms Simonova, that your whole approach to

24 valuing Onega Terminal is fundamentally flawed because

25 you proceed on the basis that it is a trade related

166 168
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 property; in other words a transshipment and

2 roll-on roll-off facility.

3 A. So you want to deny that these cars that were shipped to

4 the terminal was sold in the future? Why did they come

5 there? You want to tell me that this is not related to

6 the trade of these cars?

7 Q. Well, Ms Simonova, that may be the answer, I think: that

8 what you are talking about is the business that was run

9 from Onega Terminal, and the income that came from that

10 business, but that’s a different analysis to

11 the question of the land value. It’s a good example,

12 isn’t it, where your approach confuses the business

13 value of the Onega Terminal business in the hands of OMG

14 with the market value of the land that a willing buyer

15 is going to pay for it?

16 A. If you will look at the definition of trade related

17 property, this is any property that’s designed for

18 specific use, and it should be appraised according to

19 its business — the business potential of that property.

20 Therefore, the income approach is one of the most

21 reliable approaches for appraising the trade related

22 property.

23 When you think that somebody will be happy to buy

24 this terminal according to the value of the land, I am

25 not so sure that those who own it will agree to sell it

1 rentals for warehouses in the area, and he has worked

2 out the market yield that an investor would want for

3 that sort of investment, and he has derived a capital

4 value from that, hasn’t he?

5 A. So he used the income approach.

6 Q. Yes, he used the income approach.

7 A. So we agree that for the building, the income approach

8 could be used.

9 Q. That’s right, but he didn’t view it as a trade related

10 property, and value it as a container and roll-on

11 roll-off terminal, as you did, did he?

12 A. Because he didn’t see cars on that terminal?

13 Q. No, but Mr Millard looked at some market evidence,

14 didn’t he? His calculation looks at the sort of rent

15 that one could get on warehouse properties in

16 St Petersburg, and then he calculates a capital value?

17 A. No, no, no, in Moscow. Let me correct you. He used the

18 cap rate for Moscow storages, not for St Petersburg.

19 Q. No, I don’t think that’s right, Ms Simonova. If you

20 look at —

21 A. I look at his report, I remember that exactly.

22 Q. {E6/23/26} has Mr Millard’s — it’s on the screen now —

23 market valuation of the buildings at Onega Terminal.

24 A. It has.

25 Q. But the examples he looks at are warehouses in

169 171

1 for that price you said.

2 Q. Can you be shown, please, {E6/23/26}, which is

3 Mr Millard’s evidence as to his valuation of

4 the Onega Terminal. You can see what he says in that

5 top paragraph. He says:

6 «For the purpose of this valuation I have used

7 direct capitalisation method to determine the market

8 value of the buildings of the property and comparable

9 approach to determine market value of the remaining area

10 of the property in its usage as open yard space. I have

11 split my market value calculations into 2 parts. First

12 I have analysed the buildings, then separately the land

13 that is not occupied by the buildings and then I have

14 amalgamated the 2.»

15 Can you see that?

16 A. Yes, I am aware of all that.

17 Q. And I suggest, Ms Simonova, that Mr Millard has adopted

18 the right approach to valuing Onega Terminal in the way

19 he describes in that first paragraph; that’s the right

20 approach, isn’t it?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Looking at Mr Millard’s valuation of the buildings, he

23 has adopted the direct capitalisation method, hasn’t he?

24 A. Yes, he did.

25 Q. And what he has done is to look at some comparable

1 the St Petersburg area, aren’t they, if you look at

2 table 4?

3 A. I am talking about cap rate.

4 Q. Right. But the rental comparables he took were in

5 the St Petersburg area, weren’t they?

6 A. Yes, some were, mm hmm.

7 Q. And you haven’t identified any better comparable for

8 calculating the potential rental for these warehouses on

9 Onega, have you? You haven’t pointed to another,

10 better, comparable warehouse?

11 A. I want to mention that Mr Millard made a fundamental

12 error qualifying the Onega Terminal as empty land and

13 storage buildings. He doesn’t take into consideration

14 the fact that there is the business of transshipment of

15 cars, and that’s a very serious mistake that affects his

16 entire valuation.

17 Q. Would it be fair to say, Ms Simonova, that you don’t

18 really offer any opinion as to whether Mr Millard’s

19 comparables are right, if Mr Millard is right to value

20 Onega Terminal not on the basis that it is a container

21 facility? In other words, if Mr Millard is right that

22 the correct valuation should be to look at the

23 warehouses and storage space, rather than to look at the

24 value of a container shipment and car facility. You

25 don’t have any particular criticism of his approach, do

170 172
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 you? I know you take issue with his approach at the 1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The very same house in Mayfair may
2 beginning, but once you are in Mr Millard’s 2 have a value millions of times greater than the same
3 calculations, you are not saying, are you, that the four 3 house on a peninsula in Wales.
4 comparables he has taken for rental examples are 4 A. Of course.
5 inappropriate? 5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. So the question is whether these
6 A. Well, if we will go into that, I would say that these 6 are comparable locations, amongst other things; do you
7 comparables he chose is not very good. 7 believe they are?
8 Q. Can you come up with any better comparables for 8 A. No. No, I just said that there is this — they are just
9 warehouses in the St Petersburg region? 9 the storages, they are not trade related property, they
10 A. I think I don’t need, and that’s why I didn’t do that. 10 are not terminals that could be used for ro-ro
11 Q. And the comparables that — Mr Millard has comparables 11 transshipment, and the main reason is because they are
12 at {E6/23/26} based in 2009; those are 2009 figures, 12 too far from the sea. This terminal had 50 metres to
13 aren’t they, that he has taken? 13 the berth, and that’s crucial for a ro-ro terminal
14 A. Probably. 14 because the car couldn’t drive from the boat on the
15 Q. And he has some 2015 figures in his report at 15 regular road; it’s forbidden. It’s forbidden and
16 {E7/24/41}. 16 therefore this 50 metres is so crucial. The entire
17 For your Lordship’s note, the experts have valued at 17 infrastructure, the fence, the special lights, the
18 2015 as well. 18 special paving, the special constructions, the rooms for
19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So there is an equivalent table, is 19 storing weapons, for example, in order they have to
20 there? 20 protect the cars — sometimes there will be $100 million
21 MR LORD: There is, my Lord, there is. There is one for 21 or $200 million of cars on the terminal; can you imagine
22 2009 in Mr Millard’s first report, and then one for 2015 22 what security needs to be there? And now we are trying
23 in his second report. 23 to use as a comparable the storage spaces that are, as
24 Again, Ms Simonova, you are not in a position, are 24 I could see on the maps, far away from the sea.
25 you, to criticise Mr Millard’s selection of 25 So, no, it’s impossible to drive the cars from
173 175

1 the comparable warehouse premises at {E7/24/41}, if

2 Mr Millard is right that that is an appropriate

3 valuation exercise here?

4 A. Well, I already told you that I disagree with his

5 approach.

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. To check his comparables for appraising that buildings,

8 to me it doesn’t have any sense. Even though I would

9 say that the — to bring these comparables, he should at

10 least show the photos and give more information about

11 those comparables, then when I am looking at the map,

12 I could see that all these comparables, they are far

13 away from the land — from the sea.

14 The only comparable number 5 might be close to

15 the port, but it’s not included into the valuation at

16 all. Then using the cap rate for Moscow storages,

17 I think it is absolutely wrong to do.

18 But I don’t want to go into that discussion of

19 appraising Onega Terminal in that way because I think in

20 general that the approach is wrong.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Ms Simonova, the purpose of all this

22 is to try and educate me. In England there is a saying

23 «Location, location, location». I imagine that you

24 would repeat it.

25 A. Yes. Everywhere is that.

1 the road under the control of the customs. So they are

2 not comparables.

3 MR LORD: Ms Simonova, somebody renting those warehouses

4 would not have any direct access, as things stood, to

5 the sea, would they? They would have to have — again,

6 they would be relying upon Sea Fishing Port, wouldn’t

7 they?

8 A. Look at the distance between these storage facilities

9 and the sea. For Onega, I told you, we have 50 metres.

10 But these ones, to my understanding, it’s hundreds and

11 hundreds, maybe a kilometre. Yes, they are close, but

12 they have to roll-on on some regular roads, which is

13 forbidden for these kind of cars.

14 Q. If we look at {E7/24/42}, Mr Millard has set out the

15 locations or the comparables he has taken in 2015, and

16 number 5 is the Onega Terminal plot, and he has taken

17 plots 1, 2, 3 and 4.

18 A. Plot number 5 is Onega? Okay.

19 Q. You are not suggesting, are you, that the comparables

20 Mr Millard shows on that table would be inappropriate

21 comparables — or, rather, that those are too far away

22 from the port of St Petersburg to be relevant

23 comparables, are you?

24 A. Exactly, they couldn’t be used for storing cars.

25 Q. Sorry, what did you mean by that last answer?

174 176
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 A. I just agreed with you that they are too far from the 1 in the St Petersburg region, and he has applied
2 ocean, and the cars that are under transshipment could 2 a premium because of its proximity to the berths.
3 not drive to that storages. 3 That’s what he has done, isn’t it, Ms Simonova?
4 Q. Could we look at {E6/23/28}, please. I will just finish 4 A. Well, I already commented on that when we were talking
5 off this point, my Lord, as quickly as I can. 5 about appraising of Western Terminal. Using any kind of
6 Mr Millard sets out his calculation of 6 industrial land in Leningradskaya Oblast, I think it is
7 the capitalisation rate that he has applied when valuing 7 not applicable because no investor who want to do
8 the warehouses on Onega Terminal. You can see his 8 transshipment business will buy space, some industrial
9 calculation. He has taken a capitalisation rate of 9 space in Leningradskaya Oblast.
10 16 per cent; can you see that, Ms Simonova? 10 Then making adjustment of 100 per cent also is
11 A. Yes, I could see, yes. 11 unacceptable, according to appraisal practice, because
12 Q. You can see what he has said. He has had reference. 12 appraisers consider any adjustment more than 25 per cent
13 A. He did, to Moscow. 13 is doubtful. But here, Mr Millard is trying to do
14 Q. Yes, he has, but he has explained what he has done in 14 100 per cent of adjustment. It’s the same as, okay,
15 the paragraph just above table 7. He said: 15 let’s appraise some apartment in the middle of London
16 «In adoption of the appropriate capitalisation rate, 16 using some apartment in the Eastern End, and let’s give
17 I have had cognisance of the yield rates used in the 17 100 per cent adjustment. Is that a good adjustment, or
18 Jones Lang LaSalle warehouse research for Moscow as at 18 it’s a bad adjustment? Maybe it’s necessary to look
19 June 2009 (see appendix 3)». 19 much deeper to that.
20 And that’s {E6/23.1/16-34}: 20 But Mr Millard doesn’t have sufficient comparables.
21 «Rates then were 14.5 per cent. In my experience of 21 That’s why he couldn’t do that.
22 warehouse valuation in Moscow and St Petersburg, 22 Q. Ms Simonova, whatever may be the drawbacks of
23 logistics investments in the capital are in more demand 23 Mr Millard’s comparables, you don’t, I think, identify
24 and hence command lower capitalisation rates, meaning 24 any comparables at all from real market transactions to
25 higher capital values. As such, I have applied 25 check your valuation of Onega Terminal land, do you?
177 179

1 a discount to the prevailing capitalisation rate of

2 14.5 per cent in Q2 2009 for Moscow warehouses, to

3 a figure of 16 per cent.»

4 So Mr Millard has adjusted some research into yield

5 rates for warehouse in Moscow, hasn’t he?

6 A. Well, anyway, there is this information from Colliers,

7 from CBRE, that using the cap rate for St Petersburg

8 storages, which is like 12.5 per cent. I don’t

9 understand why Mr Millard didn’t use that.

10 Q. So are you suggesting that you think that 12.5 per cent

11 would have been the right capitalisation rate; is that

12 your opinion?

13 A. I still consider the entire approach is wrong.

14 Q. But you are suggesting it should be 12.5 per cent, not

15 16 per cent; is that right?

16 A. At least.

17 Q. And you are relying upon the material that you have just

18 referred to, material from Colliers, is that right, and

19 CBRE?

20 A. Mm hmm. Yes. Yes.

21 Q. Could you be shown, please, {E6/23/29}, which is where

22 Mr Millard sets out his market valuation of

23 the associated yards on Onega Terminal. You can see he

24 explains how he has approached that calculation. He has

25 identified the value per square metre of industrial land

1 A. These comparables doesn’t exist. The only comparables

2 we could use will be comparables in the big port of

3 St Petersburg, but that comparables didn’t exist in

4 2008, and later — and I read about that in GVA Sawyer’s

5 report. They stated that they use only the income

6 approach because there is no comparables.

7 Q. And have you taken account of the Western Terminal

8 comparable of $40 million from May 2007? Would that be

9 a good comparable to value Onega and Western Terminal on

10 your approach?

11 A. According to international valuation standards, the deal

12 with the same assets could not be used as comparable at

13 all.

14 Q. Why is that?

15 A. This is what standards state.

16 Q. But you could use the Western Terminal price to value

17 Onega Terminal on your approach, couldn’t you?

18 A. In order to use comparables, you have to use enough

19 data — you couldn’t do like Mr Millard and use one

20 comparable for the piece of land. It could be out of

21 range, there might be different reasons why that’s not

22 the market price, and so you have to have some range,

23 some several comparables. Using one comparable is not

24 sufficient at all.

25 Q. But, Ms Simonova, you haven’t taken one transactional

178 180
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 comparable in your valuations of Onega Terminal, have

2 you? You have not taken one real life rental or sale or

3 warehouse lease. You haven’t checked your value with

4 any market transactions at all, have you?

5 A. Wait a minute. When I appraise the apartment I use

6 comparables. When I appraise office space I use

7 comparables. How could you say that I didn’t? We both

8 used the same comparable approach for that.

9 Q. But ms Simonova, I asked you about Onega Terminal, not

10 the other assets, and can you confirm that you haven’t

11 taken into account any comparable land deal, land

12 transaction, in your valuation of Onega Terminal land?

13 A. That’s true.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Can I just ask, why is it not relevant

15 to at least have regard to the price that was paid for

16 the Western Terminal land in 2007, both in the context

17 of Western Terminal itself and in the context of

18 the Onega land? Why is that not something to be taken

19 into account? I can understand there may be all sorts

20 of explanations as to why it should differ, but surely

21 it is relevant, isn’t it?

22 A. First of all, that happened in 2007. My appraisal was

23 the end of 2008 for Onega, and 2012 for

24 Western Terminal. No appraisal will take into

25 consideration such old deal. That’s the first.

1 Mr Millard’s sales comparables in circumstances where

2 you have not identified any alternatives; do you want to

3 comment on that?

4 A. You built this strange logic: you couldn’t comment

5 because you didn’t show any other comparables. I have

6 to tell you that I studied the market and I spend a lot

7 of time trying to find any comparables. I was talking

8 to a lot of real estate agencies, and everything I have

9 found wasn’t — to my knowledge are not comparables.

10 Therefore this logic to say I couldn’t comment

11 because I don’t offer, it’s not sufficient logic.

12 Sorry.

13 Q. Let me put it a different way.

14 A. Sorry.

15 Q. I understand.

16 A. Try to say it another way.

17 Q. If you look at Mr Millard’s evidence at {E6/23/29}

18 towards the bottom of the page, the second to last

19 paragraph, he explains how he has calculated average

20 industrial land plot price as at the middle of 2009.

21 You can see what he says there. He has calculated

22 $1.153147 million per hectare; can you see that?

23 I think that’s for St Petersburg average industrial land

24 plot prices.

25 Now, can you say to his Lordship, what’s your

181

1 The second is, we are usually trying to use data

2 that’s available in the market. This deal wasn’t at the

3 market. There was some contract, wherever that —

4 I wasn’t aware, but even I will — I wouldn’t take it

5 into consideration because I don’t know how much market

6 deal was that.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, sorry, Mr Lord.

8 MR LORD: My Lord, I see the time. I don’t know whether

9 your Lordship wishes to …

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am in your hands.

11 MR LORD: Shall I go on for another few minutes?

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: How are you feeling, Ms Simonova? Are

13 you resilient enough for more of this, or …?

14 A. I am a little bit tired.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Lord, is this a natural point or

16 an unnatural point?

17 MR LORD: It is probably slightly unnatural.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: How long would it take you to get to

19 a natural point?

20 MR LORD: Probably about another five minutes or so.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Can you bear another five minutes to

22 get us to a natural point?

23 A. Yes.

24 MR LORD: Ms Simonova, I was asking about {E6/23/29} and

25 I was putting to you that you had no basis to criticise

183

1 opinion of the average industrial land plot price as at

2 the middle of 2009 in the St Petersburg area? What was

3 it?

4 A. I already said that there were a lot of industrial

5 pieces of land, but they are not sufficient replacement

6 for the land in the port of St Petersburg. The

7 appraisers have to look at the incentive of

8 the financial investor to replace with the comparable he

9 is using for the land he is appraising, and as I stated,

10 there were a lot of industrial land, but all that land

11 are not comparables. Therefore, there is irrelevant of

12 what was the land in LeningradskayaOblast on the

13 industrial pieces of land.

14 Q. But, Ms Simonova, is it the position that you can’t give

15 his Lordship any opinion as to what the average price

16 for industrial land in St Petersburg was in the middle

17 of 2009?

18 A. I don’t want.

19 Q. Sorry?

20 A. Because it’s irrelevant. For this appraisal.

21 Q. And if we go to {E7/24/41} — that might be a bad

22 reference, hang on a minute.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is it the next page?

24 MR LORD: It is my fault, my Lord. I do apologise.

25 I apologise, Ms Simonova, it’s {E7/24/42}; his

182 184
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 Lordship is right. 1 might answer your Lordship’s question, but I think
2 A. Mm hmm. 2 I might leave it until Monday, unless your Lordship
3 Q. You can see that Mr Millard has set out his calculation 3 wants it now.
4 of the market value of the buildings at Onega in 2015; 4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, I —
5 can you see that? 5 MR LORD: I need to check the answer to what question it
6 A. Mm hmm, yes, I see it. 6 was. I have lots of questions and lots of answers
7 Q. And, again, are you in a position to give his Lordship 7 spinning around. It has been a long day.
8 any evidence as to the average price for industrial land 8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It has been a long day; well done.
9 in the St Petersburg area in 2015? 9 I just want to pick your brains about something
10 A. Well, this is not the land, this is the buildings, 10 which I should know about, which is normally experts are
11 table number 2. 11 not in the same purdah, but equally I would not wish to
12 Q. I see, yes. 12 not have given a clear guidance, if you think one is
13 A. And I already stated that these buildings even not 13 appropriate, to Ms Simonova, in all the circumstances.
14 comparables to the buildings on the Onega Terminal, 14 What do you say is the position in that respect?
15 because they don’t have access to the — that close to 15 MR LORD: I am afraid that I wasn’t fully aware that the
16 the berth, as Onega Terminal, and therefore they 16 same —
17 couldn’t replace the car transshipment; they couldn’t be 17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: They don’t, but I propose to say
18 used for that activity. 18 nothing unless you say that I should.
19 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, I just need to … (Pause). 19 MR LORD: May I just take instruction, my Lord?
20 Yes, it is {E7/24/43}, Ms Simonova. You can see 20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. (Pause).
21 that on that page Mr Millard explains how he valued the 21 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, I know I shouldn’t ask
22 land plots at Onega in 2015. He applied a premium 22 your Lordship questions. Is your Lordship suggesting
23 because the land plots were adjacent to a berth, and 23 that experts, when they are giving evidence, can discuss
24 then he has looked at some subject properties. Can you 24 the case overnight with others?
25 see, he has looked at some comparables? Can you see 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, they sometimes do.
185 187

1 that?

2 A. I see that one comparable is Kalininsky District and

3 number 2 is Oktyabrskaya District, and the third one is

4 Shafirivskiy Avenue, Krasnogvardeyskiy District. The

5 first is Kalininsky District and the other two are

6 different districts .

7 Q. Can you give any evidence as to what would be the

8 average price per square metre for industrial land in

9 St Petersburg region in 2015?

10 A. No, I can’t, and I think that’s irrelevant.

11 Q. So you are in no position to say that Mr Millard is

12 wrong in his assessment of the price of the industrial

13 land in St Petersburg as at that date, are you?

14 A. He used the wrong approach. He classified the assets in

15 the wrong way.

16 MR LORD: My Lord, that is a more natural break. I do

17 appreciate your Lordship bearing with me, and

18 Ms Simonova likewise.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is that a not-unnatural break, at any

20 rate.

21 A. Thank you.

22 Housekeeping

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, do you have a worry? Do you have

24 something? (Pause)

25 MR LORD: Yes, my Lord, I think we have a document that

1 MR LORD: Right.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Because the expert, certainly in

3 certain circumstances, has compiled his report or her

4 report on the basis of conversations to bring up the

5 field of expertise, and their promise to me is that

6 their fundamental obligation and duty is to the court,

7 and they are simply giving me their honest opinion in

8 that context.

9 But if you think that is wrong, or if you think some

10 different rules should be applicable in the particular

11 circumstances, I wouldn’t wish to have not given any

12 warning that you feel is appropriate; do you see what

13 I mean?

14 MR LORD: My Lord, I am not at all suggesting that anything

15 should be ordered that wouldn’t be the appropriate — if

16 you like, what your Lordship thinks is the usual rule,

17 and it may be safer for the witness that various

18 discussions are not had, and Mr Stroilov may have a view

19 about that. But if it is suggested that the witness

20 should be able to talk to anybody about the case and

21 your Lordship is content with that and thinks that is

22 the normal order, then I …

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t know what people think is

24 the normal order. I think nothing is ever said, with

25 respect to experts.

186 188
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 MR LORD: My Lord, it isn’t my, or my learned colleagues’, 1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Not before 12.00 pm, is that?
2 experience that witnesses would be able to talk when 2 MR LORD: Not before 12.00 pm, my Lord. We would hope that
3 they are, effectively, in the course of giving their 3 we could start at 12.00 pm.
4 evidence. 4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: 12.00 pm?
5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, then I should give a warning, 5 MR STROILOV: Given that Ms Simonova has very kindly agreed,
6 unless Mr Stroilov tells me. 6 and has been very flexible, I wouldn’t want, really, to
7 MR LORD: Yes, and certainly that’s what’s happened today. 7 ask her to wait for hours while we finish with other
8 Mr Stroilov very fairly told Ms Simonova that she 8 matters. We obviously have some housekeeping for
9 shouldn’t discuss the case. He very fairly told her 9 Monday, and I don’t know whether it is still on. So if
10 that — 10 we finish with banking experts earlier, so much the
11 MR STROILOV: I wasn’t aware there was any difference, 11 better, we can address the issue of timetable and so on.
12 my Lord. 12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m flexible about this, but I just
13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The thing is, practice differs, and 13 wanted to give as much help to Ms Simonova as I could,
14 the circumstances are slightly different, but I think 14 so she neither wastes time, nor has to hang about here
15 all I want, really, is Ms Simonova to know what she can 15 longer than she has to; do you see what I mean?
16 and what she can’t do, and I think in 16 MR LORD: My Lord, it would be preferable, in my submission,
17 the circumstances — I will tell you what we are 17 if — I think we have estimated an hour to an hour and
18 discussing. 18 a half for each banking expert. They are meant to be
19 When someone is in the witness box, at least if they 19 starting at 9.30, which would mean that we ought to be
20 are giving evidence of fact, the court normally gives 20 able to start at 12.00, and it would be my submission
21 a ruling, for the assistance of the witness and for the 21 that it would be better to finish Ms Simonova safely in
22 protection of the parties and the court process, that 22 time on Monday so she can go, while everyone is fresh,
23 they must not discuss the matter at all with anybody, 23 and we pick up anything else at the end of the day, if
24 for so long as they are in the witness box, and that 24 that is all right. I would greatly prefer to start, if
25 includes time when they are waiting, breathless, for the 25 we can, near 12.00, so we can make sure that we finish
189 191
1 next day of giving evidence. 1 in good time.
2 The question which I have raised, and I may be at 2 MR STROILOV: Yes, I’m not fighting to my death for this.
3 fault in this, is whether the same applies to you as 3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am not going to make a direction,
4 an expert witness, where you are simply trying to guide 4 but I think that you should agree amongst yourselves how
5 me on the correct matters of opinion on which you 5 long it is going to take with these other witnesses and
6 promised to give me assistance. 6 you should tell Ms Simonova when she should be available
7 I think, in the circumstances, and this may come as 7 from. I think an indicative «not before 12.00 pm» may
8 a relief to you, and I hope so, it is best for you not 8 be the default answer.
9 to discuss this matter with anyone else, and to enjoy 9 As to the other housekeeping matters — I am sorry
10 your weekend in London and to return fresh on Monday. 10 to talk across you, Ms Simonova. You are free to go and
11 To some extent, that is bolstered in my mind, even if 11 not listen to me droning on for the next five minutes —
12 illogically, by the fact that that would have been the 12 when are we going to deal with those, as we have gobbled
13 position had you given all your evidence within 13 up a bit of Monday?
14 the single day which had been envisaged, and I think 14 MR STROILOV: Well, hopefully some time will be left on
15 that best preserves — that is the most cautious 15 Monday. Other than that, I think it has to be either on
16 approach. 16 papers or perhaps Thursday morning, just before
17 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, I don’t anticipate any 17 Mrs Yatvetsky, because I can’t see any —
18 difficulty with that. 18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The most urgent, so that Mr Milner
19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So think of other things, or at least 19 should know the position, is that issue. Now, are there
20 discuss other things. 20 any points beyond Withers’ letter which I need to take
21 That’s that. When should we give Ms Simonova 21 into account?
22 a steer as to when to return? 22 MR LORD: No, my Lord, not as far as we are concerned.
23 MR STROILOV: Mr Lord suggested 2.00 pm on Monday, which 23 MR STROILOV: It is pretty much agreed now, as I understand
24 seems reasonable, I think. We hope to finish with 24 it.
25 banking experts by that time. 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I hadn’t understood that.
190 192
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, I apologise.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It seemed to me that my best course

3 was simply to thank Withers and Mr Milner and indicate

4 that I will respect the fact that they are only on the

5 record for a limited time. Whilst they are on the

6 record, they have the duties of a solicitor.

7 I would propose simply to direct that each takes his

8 own course, unless there is some particular point that

9 they wish to clear with me.

10 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, I think that really removes

11 any …

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We’ve done that, so the only question

13 is the Popov/Steadman question. Are you still going to,

14 in all the circumstances, produce your written stuff

15 over the weekend? That’s what I’m really …

16 MR LORD: Yes, my Lord, and we would hope — obviously we

17 will endeavour to set the matter out as crisply and

18 clearly as we can.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

20 MR LORD: And we have debated the issues up to this point,

21 so one would hope that they have been so ventilated that

22 it may be a matter that would not need a huge amount of

23 oral submission on top.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, during the course of the day,

25 various crossovers, which each of you may rely on, have

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And have enquiries been made of

2 Professor Maggs, who is no doubt a busy chap, as to when

3 he might be available?

4 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, I am not sure.

5 MR BIRT: Professor Maggs is currently available for the

6 pencilled-in slot for the week on Thursday or Friday.

7 My Lord also previously talked about the first week

8 in May, I think provisionally enquired, and that also

9 sounds okay. But nothing is in ink, my Lord, is where

10 we currently are.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right.

12 Well, I will expect over the weekend your say in

13 writing on what I have called the Popov/Steadman topic,

14 and for that purpose, could you please — I will give

15 an e-mail to Mr Trout so that you can get the

16 documentation to me over the weekend, so that I can read

17 it, since Monday appears to be quite a busy day.

18 If I can do it at the tail end of Monday, well and

19 good; if I can’t, I will let you know. Otherwise next

20 week remains as planned, with our day off on the 13th.

21 A day off for some, at any rate.

22 MR LORD: Thank you, my Lord.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. Have a good weekend all,

24 and I will see you at 9.30 am on Monday.

25 (5.10 pm)

193 195

1 become clearer.

2 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right.

4 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, there is one other point. The

5 timetabling of the Russian lawyers as well, whether they

6 might be coming the week after next, a week on Thursday?

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Well, Mr Stroilov was going to

8 add to his written —

9 MR STROILOV: Was I? I thought — again, I may be totally

10 wrong about where we left it. I thought all the

11 parameters were clear and it’s really for your Lordship

12 to decide. It is a timetabling issue. It’s difficult

13 for me and it is difficult for Dr Gladyshev to do it the

14 week after the next, because he has different work with

15 the deadline on 22 April, and I will just have finished

16 with Mrs Yatvetsky and then I have to go into a totally

17 new area. So I don’t feel I can prepare for

18 Professor Maggs, and Dr Gladyshev doesn’t feel that

19 he can help me sufficiently.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I thought he said it was «doable».

21 MR STROILOV: He said it was doable. So for him it is

22 doable, that’s right. But I feel that my preparations

23 for Professor Maggs will be prejudiced (a) because

24 I haven’t got time, (b) because I haven’t got enough of

25 Dr Gladyshev.

194

1 (The court adjourned until 9.30 am on

2 Monday, 11 April 2016)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

196

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 8, 2016 Day 35

1 INDEX
2 PAGE
3 Housekeeping …………………………………..1
4 MS LUDMILA SIMONOVA (Affirmed) ………………….. 8
5 Examination-in-chief by MR STROILOV ……….. 9
6 Cross-examination by MR LORD …………….. 12
7 Housekeeping …………………………………186
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

197

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

198

April 8, 2016 Day 35

A

A&M (1) 28:8

A&M’s (1) 28:9 ability (2) 105:1

165:21

able (9) 8:2 65:10 69:13 86:12 108:21 119:18 188:20 189:2 191:20

absence (1) 166:21 absolute (1) 49:8 absolutely (14) 2:18 9:4 12:17 50:6

54:18 95:10 131:15 139:18 145:12 156:21 158:1 162:9 164:5 174:17

absorbed (1) 113:11 abundance (1) 166:23 abutting (2) 69:22

70:8

accept (11) 9:10 16:6 16:15 41:2 57:5 80:17,18 92:20 98:8 119:22 151:10

accepts (1) 83:2 access (31) 3:21 29:25

30:6,14,19 31:6,14 31:17,20,24 32:2 67:16 71:7 81:23 88:16 116:7 119:12 158:19 160:17,23 161:2,2 163:6,11 163:17 164:9,21 165:6 167:22 176:4 185:15

accommodate (1)

136:10

accorded (1) 164:22 account (8) 4:9 5:18

125:6 161:17 180:7 181:11,19 192:21

accounting (2) 22:25 50:16

accounts (6) 108:13 108:17 155:10,11 156:23,24

accredited (1) 13:16 accurate (1) 162:20 achievable (1) 99:20 achieve (3) 40:16

106:5 115:15

achieved (4) 118:12

150:24,24,25

acquired (3) 77:10 149:21 150:11

acquisition (1) 153:15 acreage (1) 118:8 acronym (1) 50:8

act (3) 18:5 21:10 40:6

acted (1) 39:16 acting (2) 12:13 17:1 activities (2) 108:11

157:25 activity (6) 49:20

56:23 70:11 114:23 166:6 185:18

actual (4) 98:3,3 116:12 128:4

adapted (1) 56:22 add (6) 121:15 126:25

133:7,20 153:13 194:8

added (2) 122:1 135:2 additional (6) 4:11

64:22 100:8 103:16 121:15 166:5

additionally (1) agreement (3) 2:11 107:4 135:11 79:23 80:6,7,8 79:2 83:12,23,25
127:15 18:4 140:11 184:24,25 193:1 85:24 86:2,5 89:6 102:20 126:14
address (1) 191:11 agricultural (1) 56:24 appear (1) 7:6 91:7,24 92:1,1,5,5 141:2 146:22
addresses (1) 128:2 ahead (1) 165:18 appeared (1) 144:23 92:6,6 93:17,24 155:16 182:24
adequate (1) 60:1 airport (2) 89:8,14 appears (2) 165:18 94:16 95:13,14,18 aspects (3) 63:17
adjacent (3) 109:14 akin (1) 6:9 195:17 95:22 96:3,6,12,20 109:7 154:20
166:14 185:23 alleged (2) 121:17 appended (1) 2:6 98:8,10 125:24 assess (1) 158:7
adjoining (2) 69:13,14 160:1 appendices (9) 24:4 127:14 147:13,19 assessing (2) 63:24
adjourned (1) 196:1 allocate (5) 153:1,3,6 32:14,23 64:13,20 147:22,23,24 148:1 150:17
Adjournment (1) 154:14,20 113:9,24 114:2,4 148:1,2,10,25 assessment (5) 28:24
109:2 allow (5) 28:20 appendix (7) 27:19 149:10 153:4 49:25 138:5 154:8
adjusted (2) 95:13 125:11,16 130:13 32:25 52:8 63:1 166:11 168:23 186:12
178:4 164:7 134:1 135:1 177:19 169:12,20 170:9,18 assessments (1) 29:17
adjustment (8) 147:15 allowed (4) 4:4 29:4 applicable (5) 40:25 170:20 171:5,6,7 asset (30) 25:14 26:19
147:16 179:10,12 65:18,20 62:16 148:2 179:7 172:25 173:1 174:5 26:20 27:8 29:3
179:14,17,17,18 allows (2) 70:12 72:22 188:10 174:20 178:13 37:5 39:13 40:13
adjustments (1) 80:1 alter (1) 120:24 application (2) 53:20 180:6,10,17 181:8 41:23 42:25 43:6,6
admin (1) 75:20 alternative (2) 100:3 147:25 186:14 190:16 53:12,16 61:6,10
administrative (3) 126:22 applied (9) 62:14 92:2 approached (2) 28:15 79:21 93:23 113:2
71:21 75:24 166:14 alternatives (1) 183:2 126:6 139:3 147:25 178:24 130:21 154:25
admissibility (1) 2:11 Alvarez (1) 28:3 177:7,25 179:1 approaches (13) 29:6 155:13 156:5,20
adopt (1) 37:4 amalgamated (1) 185:22 39:8 40:17,19,20 157:6,7,12,23,24
adopted (6) 78:20 170:14 applies (2) 101:4 40:23,25 41:10 168:21
79:13 96:6 127:12 America (6) 18:16,17 190:3 53:21 58:6 62:12 assets (44) 10:19 21:9
170:17,23 19:1,7 125:9 144:3 apply (5) 23:8,10 58:2 80:9 169:21 23:17 25:16 26:6
adopting (2) 46:12,17 American (4) 10:14 83:5 86:10 appropriate (12) 7:9 26:15,18,25 27:2
adoption (2) 96:2 13:17 20:3 145:9 applying (3) 57:19 37:16 38:1,5 60:18 27:10,23 28:18,21
177:16 amount (7) 34:25 87:6 126:18 79:25 112:17 174:2 29:21 43:14 47:7
adopts (1) 41:5 39:12,24 139:15 apportion (1) 154:6 177:16 187:13 49:21 50:17 51:18
advance (2) 22:3,5 165:9 167:24 apportionment (1) 188:12,15 60:14 87:10 93:15
advanced (1) 13:20 193:22 156:11 approval (2) 139:10 143:8 144:23 145:7
advantage (1) 6:21 analogies (1) 125:19 appraisal (30) 21:15 139:16 145:11 148:8 153:4
advantages (1) 101:6 analyse (5) 85:11 21:17 23:16 29:1 approvals (1) 140:20 154:2,18 155:9,10
aerial (4) 68:16,19 121:5,10,13 137:23 43:10 49:20 70:20 approve (4) 33:14 156:2,7,10,14
74:5 136:16 analysed (2) 104:24 78:15,16 79:5,7,9 53:7 55:12,19 157:2,3,4,14
affect (5) 7:15 14:5,25 170:12 99:15,24 120:17 approved (10) 33:6,12 168:19 180:12
16:1 157:15 analysis (40) 47:2,11 124:21 130:18 34:22 50:3,4 52:12 181:10 186:14
affirmation (2) 8:21 47:13,14,18 48:8 131:11 132:23 52:13 54:18 62:5,8 assignment (6) 23:12
9:7 48:20 49:3,8,12,18 137:11 140:15 approximately (3) 25:10 27:5,15
Affirmed (2) 8:15 49:23,24 50:15,18 147:15 149:9 50:22 111:16 153:5 154:17
197:4 50:22,25 51:8,11 150:20 154:10 115:14 assist (2) 8:2 83:10
afford (1) 145:11 51:12,16,23 52:2 168:21 179:11 April (4) 1:1 70:15 assistance (4) 8:17
afraid (4) 14:6 119:2 63:20 85:10 96:8 181:22,24 184:20 194:15 196:2 28:8 189:21 190:6
152:1 187:15 97:17 100:3 102:9 appraisals (4) 22:24 arbitrarily (1) 48:18 assisted (1) 7:25
agencies (1) 183:8 103:3,17 112:10 49:22 61:3 125:1 area (15) 55:24 86:4 associated (2) 127:18
ago (7) 2:3,19 31:13 116:15,20 120:13 appraise (10) 21:9 109:12 112:12 178:23
51:25 124:25 120:23 124:22 25:16 26:5 28:19 115:11 119:11 assume (7) 76:12
133:10,12 127:1 129:19 47:7 89:5 156:22 126:5 163:13 170:9 117:20,24 122:16
agree (78) 22:23 169:10 179:15 181:5,6 171:1 172:1,5 140:22 141:2
28:22,24 33:20 annum (12) 103:4 appraised (13) 78:9 184:2 185:9 194:17 165:21
35:23 37:2,3,6,15 104:7 110:5 111:24 78:23,25 79:4 areas (1) 23:1 assumed (3) 76:22
37:19 38:4 39:18 112:10,20 113:7 89:15 127:15,22,23 argue (3) 1:23 2:12 78:4 118:11
42:18,19 43:6 114:21 115:16 137:6 154:3 156:1 80:16 assumes (2) 117:17
44:11,24 45:10,15 116:12,13,18 168:19 169:18 arises (1) 6:4 119:20
45:24 46:17 49:10 answer (29) 6:4 14:22 appraiser (6) 13:17 arithmetic (1) 34:17 assuming (2) 114:13
52:3 54:13 60:2,8 15:9,21 16:20,21 23:16 31:19 84:19 arithmetically (1) 157:11
60:16,17,23 61:2,9 22:22 23:6,13 143:1 159:16 35:16 assumption (4) 48:11
62:18,19 64:3,5 29:15 45:6,8 51:25 appraisers (12) 10:14 Arkhangelsky (1) 102:16 117:2
65:10 72:3,16 57:4 79:4 80:19 13:17 18:7 21:10 140:4 118:14
76:11 81:1 87:1 93:7 105:23 142:8 21:12 29:1 48:5 Arkhangelskys (1) assumptions (19)
88:9 91:4,7,17 142:10 152:7 49:14 58:24 121:10 20:21 37:21,25 42:16
96:20 97:16,20 159:21 160:21 179:12 184:7 arm’s (2) 39:14 40:5 44:9,20 45:1,3,5,8
98:1 101:17,20 168:8 169:7 176:25 appraising (9) 22:20 arrange (1) 134:11 45:18 47:4 49:13
105:3 114:20 187:1,5 192:8 29:19 126:17 156:6 arranged (1) 1:12 59:22 96:8,22 97:7
115:25 121:11 answered (1) 45:12 169:21 174:7,19 arrangement (5) 17:5 98:11 99:18 166:11
124:10 128:11 answering (3) 14:10 179:5 184:9 17:10,15,21 18:1 assurance (1) 9:10
141:3 142:1,12,17 15:8 154:19 appreciate (2) 18:20 arrangements (3) 9:12 attach (1) 155:25
143:22 144:1 145:7 answers (4) 8:16 186:17 9:14 151:23 attempt (1) 56:19
145:17 146:3,5,18 14:24 85:9 187:6 appreciated (1) 24:21 array (2) 127:18,21 attributable (1) 60:10
147:13,19 149:25 anticipate (1) 190:17 appreciates (1) 14:14 arrives (1) 147:9 attribute (2) 155:21
150:15 160:21 anybody (3) 85:11 approach (93) 28:20 ascribe (1) 153:8 156:11
163:9,12 169:25 188:20 189:23 28:22 29:8,10,11 asked (12) 5:9,19 27:8 attributed (5) 11:24
171:7 192:4 anyway (2) 3:24 178:6 37:16 38:5 40:17 27:11,13 28:23 60:7 155:22 156:3
agreeable (1) 14:18 apart (1) 148:24 40:18,19,22,24 43:13 64:19 79:3 156:15
agreed (8) 7:21 28:8 apartment (3) 179:15 41:16,18 42:19 105:16 148:16 audio (1) 14:4
53:9 113:16 139:19 179:16 181:5 43:19 57:13,25 181:9 audits (1) 23:3
177:1 191:5 192:23 apologise (12) 11:12 60:2 62:13,13,16 asking (18) 5:8 16:25 August (1) 150:4
agreeing (2) 92:3 11:15 18:20,22 62:21,21 63:13 18:18 40:10 50:13 Australia (2) 125:10
133:10 25:23 65:6 71:13 78:20 79:10,13,22 50:13 52:18 57:5 135:19

Australian (2) 136:8

137:2

authorities (6) 139:8 139:22,24 141:13 141:24 159:6

authority (4) 139:4,7

139:18 143:2 available (12) 5:4,5

7:16 13:3 36:11 120:6 151:6,11 182:2 192:6 195:3 195:5

Avenue (1) 186:4 average (10) 48:2 112:14 120:7

147:14 183:19,23 184:1,15 185:8 186:8

avoid (1) 85:16 aware (14) 1:14 64:12

71:25 72:3,12 77:15 127:13 128:8 140:4 150:10 170:16 182:4 187:15 189:11

B

b (4) 55:15,16,19 194:24
B52/889/17 (1)

110:19

B52/889/18 (1)

110:21

B52/889/36 (1) 111:8 back (21) 14:22,23

22:14 32:17 35:14 41:19 65:1 71:2 74:12 90:11 123:9 129:16 130:15 135:3 136:1,13 142:15 145:3 150:7 160:4 161:11

background (1) 52:14 bad (2) 179:18 184:21 badly (1) 17:22

bag (1) 108:1 balance (3) 155:9,9

156:23

Baltimore (1) 87:17 bank (3) 70:20 112:10

145:13 banking (7) 143:25

144:2,2 145:9 190:25 191:10,18

banks (2) 145:14,19 bargain (1) 165:16 barristers (1) 9:3 base (2) 21:2 103:2 based (16) 18:17 21:1

23:9,10,16,17 36:21 39:7 57:16 59:22 100:2 111:15 111:24 116:11 120:6 173:12

basic (1) 76:9 basically (1) 83:12 basis (23) 17:2 18:5

28:5,16 36:15 38:1 46:12,17 57:17 86:25 98:7 104:6 107:5 127:16,23 157:17 166:4 167:20 168:11,25 172:20 182:25 188:4

bay (2) 68:6,6

bear (3) 108:7 121:22 182:21

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

199

April 8, 2016 Day 35

bearing (3) 7:5 112:18 billion (2) 132:4 150:8
186:17 BIRT (1) 195:5
beg (1) 11:14 bit (16) 15:10 20:7
beginning (2) 146:14 23:25 66:18 74:13
173:2 74:14 82:23 89:20
begins (1) 81:8 106:20 114:1 119:5
behalf (3) 9:10 25:2 129:15 151:12,17
77:14 182:14 192:13
believe (3) 116:19 blatantly (1) 76:17
131:13 175:7 block (1) 74:15
bench (1) 13:12 blow (1) 74:13
benchmark (2) 131:24 blown (1) 66:10
133:11 blows (1) 160:12
benchmarks (1) 128:2 board (8) 53:1,5,7,14
benefit (4) 59:24 54:12,14 55:12,19
133:20,21 157:12 boat (10) 82:9 159:5,9
berth (79) 68:21,21 159:12,14,15,17
68:23,25 69:1,6,7 162:8 165:1 175:14
69:12,14,18,21,22 boats (2) 90:8 138:12
70:3,8 72:22 73:8 bodies (2) 139:16
81:23 104:24 105:1 141:1
105:1,2 106:3,4,5 bolstered (1) 190:11
116:6 117:17 118:2 bono (4) 12:14 17:2
118:13 119:8,14,14 18:5,6
119:17,19,20 borrowing (1) 83:7
125:17 126:7 132:9 bottom (11) 42:9
133:3 137:5 146:23 85:22 95:20 99:25
153:2,6,7,9,13 127:11 129:6,12
154:9,11,16,17,18 146:9 160:13 163:2
158:22 159:9 183:18
160:17,23,24 161:1 bought (4) 94:6 137:4
161:2,4,21,25 137:9 154:3
162:6,8,10,17,18 box (4) 13:12 65:19
163:11,13,18 165:1 189:19,24
166:17,18,21 167:2 BP (1) 100:6
167:12,22 168:6 brains (1) 187:9
175:13 185:16,23 branch (1) 73:14
berths (28) 69:3 77:20 breach (1) 3:11
77:23 88:16 90:8,8 break (9) 62:1 64:9
104:24,25 105:7,9 65:14 107:21 151:2
109:18 110:1 152:8,22 186:16,19
127:15,18,21 breakdown (1) 111:12
128:11 132:11,22 breathless (1) 189:25
154:15,16,22 bridge (1) 136:11
158:19 160:17 briefcases (1) 6:11
161:17 165:23,24 briefly (2) 1:6 2:22
166:2 179:2 bright (1) 56:15
best (17) 5:14 15:1 bring (5) 34:13 114:7
36:14 57:1 90:25 120:25 174:9 188:4
92:20 93:2,9,10 bringing (2) 115:5
94:22 137:23,25 163:15
138:7,14 190:8,15 Brisbane (10) 131:24
193:2 132:2 134:2 135:17
better (15) 4:14 15:18 135:18 136:5,10,12
41:18 86:20,24 136:21,25
87:24,25 95:13 brokered (1) 30:10
106:8 145:11 172:7 Bromley-Martin (9)
172:10 173:8 6:13 30:9,18 31:11
191:11,21 31:21 32:1,9 138:1
beyond (2) 103:17 142:24
192:20 Bromley-Martin’s (1)
big (46) 23:4 28:25 113:18
54:9 66:9,11 67:3 brought (3) 21:14
77:22 78:2 84:8,13 121:1 147:3
84:13,17 85:2 build (3) 85:5,11
88:20,20 89:19,24 133:22
96:16 100:6,25 building (16) 71:21
101:9 115:19 72:1,4 75:17,18,20
118:25 119:1,10,11 75:24 82:14 117:17
119:19 127:3,8 155:2,3,3,8 157:4
130:25 131:1,6 166:14 171:7
134:23 136:10,11 buildings (13) 56:21
139:23 141:7,10 96:18 170:8,12,13
142:11 152:3 170:22 171:23
159:22 160:11,12 172:13 174:7 185:4
161:12 167:22 185:10,13,14
180:2 built (5) 56:21 74:18
bigger (2) 119:21 74:21 167:9 183:4
138:22 bullet (6) 81:15,17

86:19 90:13 114:17 145:25

bundle (2) 32:15 143:19

bundles (1) 64:19 bunker (3) 138:8,11

138:12 busiest (1) 135:19

business (58) 25:9,12 26:6 27:2,3,5 28:9 29:2 42:25 50:19 54:24 55:22 56:17 57:15 61:8,11,19 87:8 113:1 115:4 121:8,9 126:24 130:1,2,17,20 131:11 140:6 154:20,25 155:8,13 155:15 156:9,13,17 156:20,22 157:1,19 157:20 158:17 163:19 165:23 166:4,5 168:6,17 168:21 169:8,10,12 169:13,19,19 172:14 179:8

business.’ (1) 55:1 businesses (1) 28:4 busy (2) 195:2,17 buy (4) 150:7 163:16

169:23 179:8 buyer (6) 39:14,25

167:19,23 168:9 169:14

buyers (1) 142:13 buying (1) 161:23

C

c (1) 55:15

C4 (1) 62:12 cadastre (6) 67:18,18

73:17,23,24,25 café (1) 82:13 calculate (6) 117:4

123:15,16,20 124:11 129:18 calculated (5) 123:8 123:10 156:9

183:19,21 calculates (1) 171:16 calculating (1) 172:8 calculation (33) 34:5

46:13,18 49:19 50:16 98:12,13,15 99:12,18 103:8 116:8,16,21 118:3 120:21,24 121:4,18 121:22 122:2,13 123:3,5,9 124:4 131:17 132:17 171:14 177:6,9 178:24 185:3

calculations (7) 50:21 51:2,17,22 118:17 170:11 173:3

call (3) 1:5 8:12 12:13 called (6) 32:6 40:2

42:9 73:19 143:25 195:13

calling (1) 7:18 cancelled (1) 58:17 cap (4) 171:18 172:3

174:16 178:7 capable (2) 88:25

110:3

capacity (39) 102:16 102:23,24 103:1,3 103:5,8,17 104:2,6

104:10,15,20,22,24 98:23 99:5,7 117:1 clarify (3) 17:24 84:8 161:3
104:25 105:3,18,24 122:9,20 123:3,16 87:12 comparable (33)
106:6 111:24 112:4 123:21,25 133:8 clash (1) 15:10 23:23 79:23,25
112:19 113:7,10,16 156:8,12,14 class (2) 53:12,17 80:7,8 92:8 94:16
115:23 116:11,17 casino (2) 84:12,22 classified (4) 80:22 94:23 95:13 96:14
117:8,24 118:7,12 casinos (1) 84:25 88:1,3 186:14 125:7 127:7 130:19
118:21 129:9 categories (2) 30:5 classifying (2) 81:6 131:5 147:17 170:8
135:23 136:14 46:23 93:3 170:25 172:7,10
142:14 165:23 categorise (1) 162:3 clause (1) 150:6 174:1,14 175:6,23
capital (20) 60:1 99:4 category (3) 30:15,21 clear (12) 6:20 9:4,8 180:8,9,12,20,23
110:9,12,24 111:2 31:16 12:18 16:9 129:13 181:1,8,11 184:8
111:11,13,15 cause (3) 1:13 7:12 139:18,24 155:24 186:2
118:18 120:24 135:4 187:12 193:9 comparables (40)
121:16,23 123:15 caused (2) 3:8 13:1 194:11 40:24 96:15,16
130:5,7 171:3,16 cautioning (1) 61:20 clearer (1) 194:1 127:3,16 172:4,19
177:23,25 cautious (1) 190:15 clearly (3) 9:14 12:9 173:4,7,8,11,11
capitalisation (12) CBRE (2) 178:7,19 193:18 174:7,9,11,12
57:19 58:2 128:25 ceased (1) 59:11 clerk (1) 1:7 176:2,15,19,21,23
130:1 170:7,23 cent (28) 49:22 50:20 client (1) 49:7 179:20,23,24 180:1
177:7,9,16,24 100:5,5 101:21 clients (1) 20:4 180:1,2,3,6,18,23
178:1,11 114:22 115:8,10 clients’ (1) 3:2 181:6,7 183:1,5,7,9
capitalise (1) 155:5 123:19 146:22 close (6) 40:21 132:10 184:11 185:14,25
capitalised (1) 122:23 147:6,15,16 154:14 159:3 174:14 compare (7) 13:8
captain (2) 77:21,21 154:14,15 177:10 176:11 185:15 23:22 84:21 130:18
car (7) 158:24 159:6 177:21 178:2,3,8 co-author (1) 8:4 131:7 136:15,20
164:7 166:6 172:24 178:10,14,15 coal (1) 137:16 compared (4) 36:24
175:14 185:17 179:10,12,14,17 coffee (2) 65:18 66:8 119:9 141:11 154:7
care (1) 18:25 central (1) 165:8 Coffin (5) 20:9,10,11 comparison (1)
career (1) 49:17 CEO (2) 18:13 22:18 20:14,16 129:19
careful (1) 61:16 certain (6) 17:17 cognisance (1) 177:17 competition (2) 60:25
cargo (5) 69:23 110:4 21:11 33:20 63:12 collapse (1) 152:9 101:22
115:9 163:8 165:25 140:5 188:3 colleagues’ (1) 189:1 competitive (2)
cargoes (6) 72:23 certainly (7) 14:5 51:4 collect (1) 155:4 101:19,25
101:10,13 102:4,8 94:2 133:11 142:22 Colliers (2) 178:6,18 competitor (2) 100:13
119:22 188:2 189:7 colour (1) 161:9 101:14
carried (23) 29:16 certainty (1) 67:21 coloured (1) 161:8 compilation (1) 7:25
43:20 45:22 49:16 challenges (1) 53:17 come (15) 6:10 45:7 compiled (1) 188:3
49:17 50:21 51:1 chance (4) 29:9,12,12 68:8 80:10 84:4,5 complaining (1) 6:17
51:11,15,22 52:2 80:25 122:13,13,15 complete (3) 151:25
80:10 102:9 103:16 change (7) 22:9 40:14 123:24 129:20 152:1,15
116:20,23 120:13 48:14,18 131:20 152:14 169:4 173:8 completed (1) 120:5
124:22 125:4 132:20 163:25 190:7 completely (7) 7:2
126:10 130:6 changed (2) 125:16 comes (4) 7:8 14:22 8:24 16:6 37:9
148:19 158:18 154:5 35:14 161:23 76:22 88:18 133:22
carry (13) 37:5,17 changes (7) 47:25 coming (9) 72:7 85:13 completeness (1)
41:22 43:13 48:8 48:11,13 60:24 85:13 104:4 112:24 11:10
49:11 50:15 61:9 96:21 97:7 144:15 119:5 125:5 159:7 completion (1) 109:25
120:23 128:19 channel (1) 139:8 194:6 complex (2) 28:18
151:24 156:10 chap (1) 195:2 command (1) 177:24 29:20
168:16 charge (3) 165:8,12,14 commenced (1) 52:24 complexity (1) 16:23
carrying (13) 22:24 charges (3) 101:21,23 commendably (2) complimenting (1)
23:15 28:14 38:5 102:1 1:11 15:6 6:18
38:24 45:16 46:9 Chartered (1) 63:3 comment (9) 53:4 comply (1) 44:6
49:11,25 57:25 chat (1) 107:12 112:23 129:24 complying (1) 4:17
60:9 117:25 161:19 cheaper (2) 101:24 130:13 141:13 comprise (2) 75:2
cars (24) 82:8,8 83:18 166:6 147:18 183:3,4,10 109:22
158:14,23 159:7,14 check (17) 6:8 14:8 Commentary (1) 62:9 comprised (1) 81:21
161:14 163:15 41:23,24 48:20,22 commented (1) 179:4 compulsion (2) 39:17
164:8,25 166:2 49:12 58:16 97:20 commenting (1) 85:21 40:7
167:4,6 169:3,6 97:21 98:1 102:9 comments (7) 123:3,5 computer (1) 117:3
171:12 172:15 106:8 108:24 174:7 128:2 129:25 146:2 conceptual (1) 37:22
175:20,21,25 179:25 187:5 146:25 154:4 concern (3) 55:20
176:13,24 177:2 checked (1) 181:3 commercial (4) 94:1,6 90:16,20
case (27) 15:17 17:10 checking (4) 71:9 94:13 145:16 concerned (3) 54:17
17:11 20:15,15 113:10,20 159:6 commission (1) 4:22 60:11 192:22
21:8 22:5 23:23 chemical (1) 85:8 commissioned (1) 6:6 Concerning (1) 142:23
24:1 25:4 34:11 chief (1) 77:21 commitment (1) concerns (1) 55:23
39:3,20 43:15 choose (1) 137:22 139:8 conclusion (3) 75:16
50:25 51:7,17 58:8 chose (1) 173:7 commitments (1) 137:25 156:19
79:24 83:17 108:5 Christopher (3) 20:9 152:12 concrete (2) 75:19
148:11 155:19 20:10,11 common (3) 36:21 120:4
158:5 187:24 cinemas (1) 84:25 55:2 99:6 condition (4) 5:10
188:20 189:9 circumstances (12) companies (10) 20:4 70:14 76:10 77:11
cases (1) 20:14 4:12 5:5 60:24 37:10,13,14 38:16 conduct (5) 43:23,23
cash (29) 33:21 35:18 162:3 183:1 187:13 38:18 78:8 127:6 46:15 49:21 103:13
36:2 37:24 42:15 188:3,11 189:14,17 155:15 157:22 confess (1) 87:16
42:24 56:25 57:18 190:7 193:14 company (9) 20:2,3 confident (1) 8:19
57:18 58:2,9 86:25 city (1) 166:23 66:17 78:15 128:8 confining (1) 87:18
89:15 97:12,16 claimants (1) 25:2 131:1 138:11 155:7 confirm (7) 10:24

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

200

April 8, 2016 Day 35

11:13,24 34:10 52:18 58:16 181:10

confirmed (2) 31:13 59:7

confirming (1) 17:25 confuse (1) 29:2 confused (6) 12:16

38:9 82:12 83:20 83:24 130:12

confuses (2) 87:6 169:12

confusion (4) 28:25

55:21 82:23 85:16 connect (2) 73:5

89:14 connected (2) 73:18

73:19 connecting (1) 72:22 connection (2) 1:24

20:20 consequence (1) 2:17 consider (17) 7:10

23:14 24:24 25:5 25:11 26:2,4 40:11 131:11 132:25 141:2 147:17 148:2 153:3 163:22 178:13 179:12

considerable (2)

157:23,24 consideration (16)

26:9 40:4 43:11 78:16 104:19 105:13,24 106:2,3 113:12 117:23 118:16 150:17 172:13 181:25 182:5

considered (7) 23:19 25:10 75:15 82:6 103:24 121:6 123:4

considering (1) 90:24 considers (2) 97:12

161:23

consists (2) 109:18 123:13

consortium (1) 132:3 constraint (1) 120:3 construction (2) 72:7

73:8 constructions (2)

75:19 175:18 consulting (1) 113:21 contain (1) 51:9 contained (1) 30:20 container (42) 73:3

76:23 78:6,11 84:6 90:21 92:11,21,25 99:3 100:19,19,25 101:15,18 102:13 102:23 112:4,14 113:13,22 117:11 119:9,10 120:15 128:7 129:4,8 130:7 135:20 137:22 138:3,13,16 139:14,23 141:21 142:18 167:20 171:10 172:20,24

containers (25) 76:17 82:20,22 83:18 99:21 101:14 102:5 104:1,16 105:4,19 110:4 113:11,13,15 119:25 120:6,7,18 133:23 137:25 138:7 158:14 161:14 166:2

contains (1) 119:23

content (5) 8:20 9:9 15:23 16:17 188:21
context (6) 47:15 55:17 89:13 181:16 181:17 188:8

contingency (3) 17:15

17:20 18:1

continuation (2)

46:22 59:23

continue (2) 54:12

107:10 contract (4) 17:14

149:20 150:14 182:3

contradicts (1) 59:13 control (5) 4:19,20,23

6:7 176:1

convenient (3) 64:8

81:5 151:1

conversations (1)

188:4 convert (1) 92:25

converted (1) 93:11 cooperation (1) 141:1 copied (2) 6:22 71:6 copies (4) 3:4 12:20

134:12,15

copy (6) 27:17 31:4 58:12 66:4 70:24 134:22

correct (11) 27:3 34:21 39:19 42:21 45:6 71:25 121:12 162:11 171:17 172:22 190:5

correctly (5) 4:17 9:15 79:20 95:9 155:14 cost (13) 40:17 62:15 99:4 110:23,24

111:2 118:18 123:13,15,18 132:22 141:20 155:4

costing (1) 142:18 costs (3) 121:16,23

131:4

Council (1) 33:4 counsel (1) 15:3 count (1) 93:3 countries (4) 125:11

125:11 131:2,3 country (5) 18:6 23:17 84:15 85:3 100:23 course (36) 4:22 7:22 15:13 23:9 31:20 33:10 40:21 43:8 45:23 47:16 48:1 48:15 61:3 65:9,23 67:22 77:13 94:25 103:12 113:19 117:19,20 118:12 121:19 128:10

131:3 141:22 145:9 151:8 157:13,13 175:4 189:3 193:2 193:8,24

courses (1) 58:23 court (10) 4:14 5:15

6:10 12:12 19:22 140:17 188:6 189:20,22 196:1

cover (2) 152:4,7 covered (1) 151:13 cranes (2) 117:21

120:10

crash (4) 143:25 150:1 150:2 153:21

cream (1) 161:9 create (2) 35:14

109:13 credit (1) 143:25 crept (1) 82:23 Crimean (1) 22:8 crisis (4) 102:13
143:25 144:3 145:9 crisply (1) 193:17 criteria (2) 36:22 43:2 critical (3) 34:6 47:3

152:6

criticise (2) 173:25 182:25

criticising (1) 16:4 criticism (2) 130:14
172:25

cross (2) 158:24,25 cross-check (2) 98:2

128:19 cross-checks (1) 125:4 cross-examination (3)

2:7 12:7 197:6

cross-examining (1)

14:1

crossing (1) 160:8 crossovers (1) 193:25 crucial (2) 175:13,16 culled (1) 32:20

cure (1) 16:13 current (5) 19:14 34:7

35:23 58:18 93:2 currently (8) 12:13

17:1,7 70:17 109:18 136:5 195:5 195:10

customs (3) 159:1,5 176:1

cut (1) 107:21

D

D (1) 71:13

D156/2652.1/1 (2)

70:19 71:14

D156/2652.1/11 (1)

71:18

D196/2931/1 (1) 74:5

D196/2931/12 (1)

74:13

D196/2931/8 (1)

136:17

D20/407/1 (2) 149:19 149:20

D20/407/2 (1) 150:6 D221/3107/1 (2) 18:9

22:15

D52/889/1 (1) 77:2 D52/889/10 (1) 110:8

D52/889/17 (1)

117:13

D52/889/18 (1)

117:16

D52/889/30 (1)

119:23

D52/889/35 (1) 77:3

D52/889/37 (1)

111:11

D52/889/6 (1) 109:8 D52/889/7 (2) 109:24

138:20

D71/1066/21 (2)

159:24 160:2

D71/1066/23 (1)

160:3

data (28) 25:3 30:1,19 31:14,25 37:9,14 42:2,3 45:4 47:3 49:3 96:10,11,12 97:24 103:19,20 104:4 112:25 113:3

113:4,9,25 159:6,7 26:3,4,8 56:22 58:5 61:4 districts (1) 186:6
180:19 182:1 Deloittes (1) 25:6 82:4 84:3 103:15 diverse (1) 56:23
date (9) 9:25 39:13 demand (4) 104:11,11 131:15 141:9 145:4 diversion (1) 135:5
74:18 99:24 120:17 116:4 177:23 154:12 156:18,21 divide (1) 123:19
150:18,19,20 dense (1) 64:14 157:19 169:10 divided (1) 124:2
186:13 deny (1) 169:3 180:21 183:13 divorced (1) 97:14
dated (2) 24:25 25:1 depend (1) 105:4 186:6 188:10 doable (4) 107:11
dates (2) 26:20 dependent (2) 163:7 189:14 194:14 194:20,21,22
148:15 164:21 differently (1) 89:20 document (23) 32:2
day (12) 16:3 94:22 depending (5) 14:21 differs (2) 36:25 33:5,6,9,13 44:1
94:24 187:7,8 17:16 102:4,4 189:13 50:1,2 52:15 63:5,7
190:1,14 191:23 157:24 difficult (5) 123:7 63:9 70:16,18 77:6
193:24 195:17,20 depends (4) 96:7,10 125:19 145:10 77:8 109:9 110:8
195:21 96:10 105:6 194:12,13 110:19 129:8 141:6
days (3) 120:7,14 derive (2) 41:4 94:13 difficulties (1) 14:17 141:14 186:25
159:11 derived (3) 42:24 difficulty (2) 1:13 documentation (3)
DC (2) 19:3,4 130:8 171:3 190:18 31:6,17 195:16
DCF (67) 29:11 33:24 deriving (1) 48:22 direct (6) 163:6,11 documents (14) 5:1
34:1 36:5,10,15,16 describe (2) 71:20 170:7,23 176:4 24:15 30:5,8,14,14
36:18,20 37:4,6,11 161:15 193:7 30:20 31:10,14,25
37:17 38:1,5 41:22 described (5) 17:2 direction (2) 23:2 32:3,5,8 75:11
41:24 42:9 43:21 18:13 62:14 88:14 192:3 Documents/1/0.1 (1)
43:21 44:1,2,9,17 90:2 directly (1) 72:23 75:7
44:20,25 45:1,16 describes (3) 145:22 directory (1) 59:10 Documents/1/32.1 (1)
45:18,21 46:10 166:12 170:19 dirty (3) 101:10,13 75:11
48:9 49:11,16,18 description (7) 31:15 102:8 Documents/1/33 (1)
49:25 50:15,21 68:12 71:19 72:7 disagree (25) 52:4 75:25
51:1,16 52:2 79:13 81:24 83:8 158:11 85:24 87:2,5,9 Documents/1/33.1 (1)
79:22 80:6 87:10 designated (1) 109:12 88:18 96:23 97:10 76:2
87:11 96:3,5,12,20 designed (7) 13:9 97:19 115:17 116:1 Documents/1/34.1 (1)
97:21 98:2,4,6,9,12 54:24 60:15 99:16 116:2,3 124:13 76:7
98:15 102:10 103:2 158:13 161:13 127:20,20,22 146:4 doing (22) 6:12 7:2
116:8,21 118:3 169:17 146:16 147:1 9:6 17:7,16 25:14
120:20 123:5 destruction (1) 135:5 149:18 161:18 38:16,18 43:10
124:23 132:17 detail (3) 74:23 80:2 162:5 168:2 174:4 48:9 50:15 83:2
156:19 134:2 disagreement (3) 87:19 93:8 106:9
DCF-calculated (1) detailed (3) 26:19 147:21,24 148:24 125:2 130:17
48:21 106:15 107:20 discharge (2) 5:22,25 131:21 143:1
deadline (1) 194:15 determine (8) 28:20 disclose (3) 44:8,20 147:23 156:17
deal (13) 40:5 48:3 37:6 40:20 57:19 44:25 159:12
132:21 144:18 58:3 90:24 170:7,9 disclosed (8) 1:19,21 dollars (1) 136:8
150:21,25 167:25 determined (4) 43:1 2:5,15,16,19,22 7:1 door (2) 94:21,24
180:11 181:11,25 104:25 105:14 disclosure (6) 1:24 double-check (1) 9:4
182:2,6 192:12 156:25 3:11 4:18,25 5:22 doubt (4) 73:24
dealing (2) 137:16 determines (1) 56:16 6:18 106:20 163:14
155:1 determining (1) 57:14 discount (9) 42:15,15 195:2
deals (1) 163:1 develop (11) 83:10 42:25 47:4 123:15 doubted (1) 165:3
death (1) 192:2 84:5 100:22,22 123:19 124:16 doubtful (1) 179:13
debate (6) 54:2,3,6 111:13 112:24 157:23 178:1 doubts (1) 49:15
56:9 57:5 87:21 121:9 139:23 140:1 discounted (14) 33:21 downturn (1) 144:15
debated (1) 193:20 140:9 142:17 35:3,13 57:18 58:1 downward (1) 102:1
December (1) 28:11 developed (10) 76:11 58:9 97:12,16 Dr (4) 140:4 194:13,18
decide (5) 2:14 53:10 90:18 92:11,14 122:9,20 123:16,21 194:25
117:18 140:17 99:21 100:13,21 123:21,25 draft (22) 27:17,19,24
194:12 109:21 139:22 discounting (3) 35:1 29:23 30:24 33:5
decided (1) 54:12 168:5 35:11 121:24 36:8 37:20 41:19
decision (1) 54:9 developer (1) 142:4 discuss (9) 44:9,20 42:7 53:3,7 54:22
declined (1) 137:19 developers (1) 144:17 45:1 152:10 187:23 55:12,12,19 57:7
dedicated (2) 32:18 developing (1) 141:20 189:9,23 190:9,20 57:12,20 62:4,5
84:10 development (19) discussed (6) 28:7 105:15
deeper (1) 179:19 30:10 73:1 77:5 61:12 64:4 78:24 drafts (1) 53:5
deeply (2) 26:7 104:8,17 105:20 112:6 147:8 drain (1) 164:3
137:23 109:25 110:10 discussing (2) 45:14 dramatic (1) 97:8
default (1) 192:8 111:20,25 117:8 189:18 dramatically (1)
defendants (2) 12:12 139:2 140:11,12,24 discussion (8) 45:17 146:13
77:14 141:4,16,17 168:4 52:9 53:13,15 54:9 drawback (1) 100:8
defendants’ (1) 1:24 differ (2) 53:18 54:21 62:6 174:18 drawbacks (1) 179:22
define (2) 81:9 83:4 181:20 discussions (2) 54:12 drawings (1) 141:24
defined (2) 54:5,23 difference (16) 35:9 188:18 drawn (1) 61:18
definitely (1) 151:21 35:17 43:5 64:6 distance (2) 162:18 dredging (2) 139:9,25
definition (11) 39:7 78:2 79:5,6 84:9 176:8 dried (1) 145:14
39:19,21 40:2,8,15 90:5 113:1 124:5 distinct (2) 53:16 drive (5) 159:2 165:2
40:15,21 54:10 154:24 155:12 57:13 175:14,25 177:3
58:21 169:16 157:5 168:21 distinction (2) 63:25 driven (1) 101:23
definitions (1) 87:4 189:11 64:3 drivers (1) 165:2
degree (1) 36:17 differences (1) 86:2 distinguish (3) 56:19 driving (3) 42:1
delay (1) 14:24 different (27) 7:3 61:6,10 158:24 159:4
delivered (1) 69:23 18:14 24:4 29:6 distressed (1) 144:23 droning (1) 192:11
Deloitte (5) 25:1,2 41:3 48:3 53:21 District (4) 186:2,3,4,5 dry (1) 115:9

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

201

April 8, 2016 Day 35

due (5) 7:22 60:25 65:9 115:20 127:17
duties (1) 193:6 duty (3) 6:25 7:2

188:6

dynamics (1) 144:15

E

e-mail (2) 1:7 195:15 E5/16/69 (2) 114:25
115:13

E5/16/70 (2) 115:3,21 E5/18/16 (1) 166:9 E5/18/18 (1) 101:2 E6/20/10 (1) 112:8 E6/20/11 (1) 112:11 E6/20/12 (1) 114:9

E6/23.1/16-34 (1)

177:20

E6/23.2.1 (1) 89:18 E6/23.2/1 (5) 66:3 119:1 142:11 159:22 160:12

E6/23/26 (3) 170:2

171:22 173:12

E6/23/28 (1) 177:4 E6/23/29 (3) 178:21 182:24 183:17

E6/23/45 (4) 125:21 127:11 144:7 145:3

E6/23/46 (1) 145:1 E6/23/47 (1) 145:21 E6/23/48 (2) 146:19

147:11

E6/23/49 (1) 147:12 E6/23/51 (1) 148:14

E7 (2) 91:12 134:7

E7/24/102 (1) 63:23 E7/24/38 (1) 163:1 E7/24/41 (3) 173:16 174:1 184:21

E7/24/42 (2) 176:14 184:25

E7/24/43 (1) 185:20 E7/24/44 (1) 80:15 E7/24/47 (2) 32:23

65:1

E7/24/53 (1) 32:24 E7/24/61 (1) 33:24 E7/24/62 (1) 34:2 E7/24/63 (2) 36:4

41:19

E7/24/66 (1) 42:6 E7/24/67 (1) 43:25 E7/24/69 (1) 46:21 E7/24/76 (1) 52:7 E7/24/79 (1) 54:20 E7/24/80 (1) 56:2 E7/24/81 (1) 57:9 E7/24/86 (2) 58:11

59:16

E7/24/88 (1) 59:19 E7/24/89 (1) 60:13 E7/24/90 (2) 61:24

62:3

E7/24/92 (2) 62:9 91:21

E7/24/93 (1) 62:19 E7/24/96 (1) 62:24 E7/25.1/13 (1) 129:5

E7/25.1/43-46 (2)

134:6,21

E7/25.1/44 (2) 135:10 136:13

E7/25.1/45 (2) 135:24 136:2

E7/25.1/46 (1) 135:25 E7/25/10 (1) 96:1

E7/25/11 (1) 123:1 65:21 errors (1) 126:17 existing (3) 53:19 162:7,17 164:14 124:5 134:22,23
E7/25/14 (4) 127:25 easily (2) 12:23 56:22 especially (3) 18:6 59:25 129:2 166:17 167:2,21 files (1) 49:5
128:15 129:17 Eastern (1) 179:16 87:9 101:10 expand (2) 42:22 86:7 168:12 169:2 final (10) 31:3,5,9,16
130:10 easy (1) 134:10 essentially (1) 29:16 expanded (1) 114:14 172:21,24 31:22 33:12 47:1
E7/25/15 (2) 129:17 EBITDA (9) 47:8 57:15 establish (5) 19:19,21 expect (2) 89:10 fact (19) 2:23 6:17 77:3 81:15 97:8
131:10 123:14,18 127:12 39:24 41:6 53:15 195:12 21:15 23:20 29:24 Finally (1) 7:18
E7/25/16 (2) 130:22 129:2,3 131:10 established (1) 95:2 expectation (2) 36:16 66:2 87:21 93:1 finance (7) 111:19
131:23 155:5 estate (14) 20:1 21:6 36:18 122:9 132:13 142:4,20,20,23
E7/25/5 (1) 85:14 economically (2) 21:7 72:5,11 expectations (4) 133:21 134:10 159:25 160:1
E7/25/6 (3) 86:13,18 156:21 157:7 143:24 145:16 36:12,24 37:25 137:8 161:17 162:9 financial (11) 22:20
90:11 economics (1) 131:3 146:12,18 148:6 60:6 172:14 189:20 23:9 47:3 49:21
E7/25/7 (1) 86:13 editing (1) 54:19 155:18,19 156:14 expected (2) 139:5,9 190:12 193:4 50:11,17 96:8
E7/25/8 (1) 86:14 educate (1) 174:22 183:8 expenditure (9) factor (4) 57:19 58:3 144:14 150:2
E7/25/9 (3) 95:11,16 effect (7) 48:11 97:8 estimate (4) 110:23 110:10,12 111:12 123:15 140:20 153:20 184:8
114:16 102:10 117:1 110:24 111:2,10 111:13,16,19 factors (3) 118:8 financing (1) 145:16
E7/4/78 (1) 52:14 121:17 144:2 estimated (4) 39:12 120:25 130:5,8 155:19,20 find (7) 38:25 113:25
E8/26.1/11 (1) 27:9 153:21 39:24 42:14 191:17 expenditures (1) facts (1) 165:12 114:3 124:20
E8/26.1/3 (1) 24:4 effectively (3) 14:19 evaluate (1) 148:12 118:23 factual (2) 45:4 159:7 125:10,19 183:7
E8/26.1/4 (3) 24:2,9 164:13 189:3 evening (1) 152:8 expensive (2) 94:10 fail (1) 9:14 finds (1) 123:7
24:11 efficient (9) 57:16 event (2) 62:8 152:11 159:9 fair (17) 22:10,23 fine (1) 107:23
E8/26.1/6 (1) 26:12 59:24 78:13 82:5 everybody (3) 54:13 experience (7) 20:25 23:18 48:12 54:8 finish (12) 62:1
E8/26.1/9 (2) 25:25 82:14 117:18 121:6 101:20 124:19 22:16,24 50:12 76:8 81:20,24 106:24,25 118:23
31:1 159:12 164:10 evidence (45) 5:11 146:11 177:21 106:20 114:5 138:2 130:23 151:21
E8/26.3/356 (1) 27:18 efficiently (1) 159:19 11:4 12:4 14:3 189:2 147:20,24 148:23 177:4 190:24 191:7
E8/26.3/357 (1) 27:20 either (9) 7:10 57:17 19:20 21:14 25:5,6 experienced (1) 8:7 150:1 151:12 191:10,21,25
E8/26.3/362 (1) 27:22 58:1 80:19 91:6 33:11 36:11,21,24 expert (15) 4:10,22 172:17 finished (2) 147:12
E8/26.3/363 (1) 29:22 92:4,7 152:8 37:7,10,12 41:24 6:5,14 13:6,10,15 fairer (1) 70:21 194:15
E8/26.3/364 (2) 27:16 192:15 41:25 50:20 51:15 24:24 26:18 32:20 fairest (1) 16:5 finishing (1) 117:15
30:7 electrical (1) 118:14 92:10,15 94:23 34:19 51:7 188:2 fairly (4) 70:6 152:14 Finland (1) 131:2
E8/26/1 (1) 9:21 electronic (1) 134:10 97:23 99:20 104:12 190:4 191:18 189:8,9 firm (6) 8:6 17:5 18:1
E8/26/102 (1) 9:24 element (1) 144:12 104:14,14 105:17 expert’s (1) 6:9 familiar (8) 33:9,18 30:8,9 31:11
E8/26/13 (2) 39:1 elements (1) 102:22 108:10 127:14,24 expertise (1) 188:5 53:22,25 54:1 63:4 first (60) 2:25 3:1,16
41:7 empty (2) 82:6 172:12 140:5 144:8 153:16 experts (9) 6:10 65:10 66:19 114:24 5:20,25 9:22 13:15
E8/26/30 (2) 143:4,18 enable (4) 14:15 44:7 167:10 170:3 163:5 173:17 familiarise (1) 24:15 14:9 15:17 27:15
E8/26/7 (2) 12:25 44:18 65:21 171:13 183:17 187:10,23 188:25 far (15) 25:8 26:8 27:18,20 32:14,17
13:15 endeavour (1) 193:17 185:8 186:7 187:23 190:25 191:10 54:17 71:25 72:3 33:9 44:15 45:11
E8/26/78 (1) 158:4 ended (1) 15:18 189:4,20 190:1,13 explain (6) 31:16 72:12 138:9 150:19 47:10 52:16 55:9
E8/26/82 (2) 158:10 ends (1) 72:22 exact (2) 39:21 124:6 45:20 47:22 89:6 167:22 174:12 66:24 73:7 75:8
161:12 engaged (1) 28:3 exactly (17) 9:23 123:8,23 175:12,24 176:21 91:19 97:16 99:1,1
E8/27.3/17 (1) 70:23 engagement (1) 28:9 38:21 48:25 50:23 explained (10) 21:1 177:1 192:22 99:5 103:2,22,25
E8/27.3/22 (1) 70:25 England (1) 174:22 51:24 57:23 70:10 46:18,20 53:8 69:6 fastest (1) 135:20 110:19 112:11,23
E8/27.3/23 (1) 71:5 English (16) 8:16,20 73:15 83:22 85:6 80:1 160:19 161:18 fault (10) 40:10 50:7,9 117:9 118:19 119:9
E8/27/1 (1) 10:16 8:25 13:21 14:1,10 95:10 105:6 139:17 168:20 177:14 65:7 82:25 91:20 119:10,19 124:25
E8/27/10 (1) 68:14 14:11,13,23 15:5,8 158:21 167:16 explains (6) 115:22 128:15 135:13 125:22 126:18
E8/27/11 (1) 68:16 15:22 16:19,20 171:21 176:24 125:23 135:17 184:24 190:3 128:4,7 129:25
E8/27/12 (2) 68:19 51:5 71:12 Examination-in-chie… 178:24 183:19 fear (1) 152:19 143:10 144:7,24
69:11 enjoy (1) 190:9 9:19 197:5 185:21 feasible (5) 69:21 70:7 145:2 148:16
E8/27/13 (2) 72:18 enquired (1) 195:8 example (13) 29:5 explanation (1) 52:14 84:20 89:13 154:11 150:13 158:4,5
74:24 enquiries (1) 195:1 34:24 58:20 94:1,5 explanations (1) feature (1) 140:23 170:11,19 173:22
E8/27/14 (1) 69:2 ensure (2) 9:13 37:24 94:6 97:1 100:4 181:20 features (5) 43:9,11 181:22,25 186:5
E8/27/22 (1) 93:12 entire (7) 84:14 85:1,3 119:9 139:25 155:1 explore (2) 75:4 56:25 59:17 145:5 195:7
E8/27/23 (1) 69:16 131:19 172:16 169:11 175:19 159:20 February (2) 24:25 firstly (1) 1:6
E8/27/27 (1) 137:12 175:16 178:13 examples (9) 22:6,10 export (2) 137:18 25:1 fishing (9) 160:8
E8/27/28 (2) 99:19,25 entirely (6) 9:13 50:9 46:3,8 55:2 56:13 138:8 Federation (6) 21:3,4 164:12,15 165:5,22
E8/27/30 (4) 102:15 65:7 96:7,10 99:13 128:4 171:25 173:4 exporting (2) 85:12 22:7 84:15 144:4 166:5,20 168:9
102:19 112:2 117:6 entities (1) 84:3 exceed (1) 130:8 138:13 145:10 176:6
E8/27/36 (1) 72:25 entitled (1) 52:10 Excel (2) 117:3 124:5 exports (1) 137:19 feed (2) 14:4,11 fittings (1) 59:25
E8/27/40 (4) 98:13 entity (2) 43:1 164:22 excess (2) 60:6,10 exposure (2) 33:5 feel (4) 188:12 194:17 five (12) 2:19 29:8
116:9 118:4 120:20 entrance (1) 159:5 exchange (1) 39:13 53:3 194:18,22 31:7 34:16 41:13
E8/27/41 (1) 152:24 entries (1) 31:7 exchanges (1) 5:7 extension (1) 136:6 feeling (2) 107:19 61:25 90:8 124:7
E8/27/48 (1) 10:21 entry (3) 47:1,12 exclude (2) 31:22 60:9 extent (5) 48:10 53:11 182:12 163:25 182:20,21
E8/27/5 (1) 21:23 112:12 excluded (3) 27:23,25 134:18 144:13 fell (2) 143:24 146:12 192:11
E8/27/9 (2) 68:10 environment (1) 3:1 60:12 190:11 fence (1) 175:17 five-year (2) 98:18
70:17 environmental (1) exercise (4) 48:9 extra (1) 142:14 fertilisers (1) 85:9 131:18
E8/28/1 (1) 10:4 101:12 97:14,18 174:3 extract (7) 39:4 85:15 field (1) 188:5 fixed (1) 50:17
E8/28/28 (1) 10:8 envisaged (2) 110:10 exhausting (1) 107:15 91:23 93:13 138:21 fifth (2) 98:20 124:8 fixtures (1) 59:25
E8/28/6 (1) 79:16 190:14 exhibit (5) 3:23 27:17 159:24 166:10 fight (1) 16:22 flawed (1) 168:24
E8/29/1 (1) 11:10 equal (1) 40:19 70:16,22 71:15 extracts (1) 160:5 fighting (1) 192:2 flaws (1) 86:5
E8/29/5 (1) 11:22 equally (2) 86:10 exhibited (10) 1:20 eyes (1) 139:21 figure (10) 68:25 flexible (2) 191:6,12
earlier (7) 23:6,14 187:11 2:24 24:3 51:20 102:18 103:17 flight (2) 144:17 145:5
74:12 91:22 117:22 equation (2) 123:23 63:1 66:1,2 71:1 F 121:3 123:24 124:3 floor (1) 75:18
119:1 191:10 124:1 75:12 135:15 facilities (9) 82:15 124:11 129:21 flow (25) 33:21 35:19
early (3) 120:4 152:11 equipment (5) 60:1 exhibiting (1) 32:4 150:13 178:3 36:3 37:24 42:15
84:22 85:6,6 89:1
152:14 105:6,7 117:21 exhibits (2) 3:17 figures (6) 112:9 57:18 58:2,9 89:15
90:10 100:21
Earth (4) 74:2,3 77:20 136:8 129:7 126:11 135:7 97:12,16 98:23
128:12 176:8
167:7 equivalent (2) 115:8 exist (8) 33:14 54:19 149:15 173:12,15 99:5,7 117:1 122:9
facility (17) 71:8 73:3
ease (3) 12:21 13:5 173:19 73:25 98:5 141:23 file (12) 12:21,22,24 122:20 123:3,16,21
109:21 119:8
32:16 erode (1) 165:17 141:23 180:1,3 13:10,11 32:18 123:25 133:8 156:8
158:13 161:13,16
easier (3) 13:6 65:17 error (1) 172:12 existed (1) 99:23 64:22 71:13 117:3 156:12,15

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

202

April 8, 2016 Day 35

flows (4) 42:24 56:25 57:18 86:25
fluctuations (1) 35:18 focus (1) 40:12 following (5) 42:23

55:13 68:11 109:23 144:9

follows (4) 47:1 110:13 120:2 129:1

foolished (1) 74:23 foot (7) 29:24 46:11 62:12 93:14 95:16

109:10 110:22 forbidden (3) 175:15 175:15 176:13

force (1) 58:14 forecast (18) 34:5,12

34:15,24,25 35:2 35:17 36:2 57:18 98:18 103:21,22,23 113:23 115:15 121:15 124:14,24

forecasted (1) 47:3 form (5) 12:3 18:1 32:3,4 64:13 formed (1) 17:22

formula (2) 124:18,20 formulas (1) 99:15 formulate (1) 16:9 forward (2) 141:25

147:4

found (3) 58:20 108:3 183:9

four (6) 23:4 98:19,20 124:8 166:13 173:3

fourth (1) 123:18 framework (2) 37:22

62:14 framing (1) 75:18 free (1) 192:10

freehold (1) 109:11 frequently (1) 57:14 fresh (2) 190:10

191:22

Friday (2) 1:1 195:6 friend (2) 1:22 65:19 front (5) 9:21 10:5,17

11:17 12:20 frozen (2) 84:16,17 fuel (4) 55:2 138:9,11

138:12

full (9) 10:25 12:1 16:3 45:7 82:8 111:25 117:24 165:23 167:6

fully (9) 8:20 9:9 14:13 21:13 41:2 75:3,5 88:14 187:15

function (2) 117:5

118:7

functioning (4) 75:3,5

88:15 168:12

fundamental (5)

63:19 126:17 155:12 172:11 188:6

fundamentally (2)

85:24 168:24 furnish (1) 134:16 furnished (1) 3:4 further (10) 3:7,14

5:11 6:11,14 7:10 80:2 95:24 120:10 139:22

Furthermore (2) 74:1

139:20

future (7) 18:3 35:5 53:11 86:25 100:25

157:17 169:4

G

gain (1) 163:17 gate (1) 84:14 gathered (1) 6:12 gauged (1) 147:5 general (17) 29:10

32:12 42:17 44:1,3 82:16,18 110:4 132:13 143:11 145:18 146:5,8,18 147:13 151:14 174:20

generally (2) 88:11 144:8

generate (3) 57:1 94:18 168:7

generated (5) 29:20 60:6 115:10 156:16 168:19

generating (6) 28:18 93:15,23 94:3 127:17 157:14

geographically (1)

19:23

getting (4) 6:21 14:2 15:13 38:8

give (36) 4:25 16:20 22:10 27:4 29:4 46:2 48:5 55:1 65:22 70:23 71:19 94:1,5,7 98:1 120:9 129:25 134:1 139:19 140:2 145:19 146:25 154:4,15,25 156:2 174:10 179:16 184:14 185:7 186:7 189:5 190:6,21 191:13 195:14

given (22) 8:16 14:16 17:9 26:9 30:1,6,19 31:6,14,17,24 46:8 67:15 89:2 132:13 140:5 143:5 153:20 187:12 188:11 190:13 191:5

gives (9) 56:13 83:8 112:9 122:23 124:5 132:12 152:7 167:15 189:20

giving (8) 19:20 36:25 128:25 187:23 188:7 189:3,20 190:1

Gladyshev (3) 194:13

194:18,25

global (10) 128:5,7,8 128:18,24 129:1,8 129:20 130:25 144:14

GN (2) 52:17 55:1

GN12 (10) 52:16,18 52:22 53:2 54:19 54:21,23 56:12 57:12 59:1

go (89) 4:1,2,4 5:6 16:17 21:12 22:14 24:8 25:25 26:8 27:16 33:24 34:2 41:13,19 42:5 43:25 46:21 52:1 52:13 56:1 57:9 58:11 59:19 60:13 61:24 62:19 63:23 69:2,16 70:21 71:12,18 74:12,24

75:10,25 76:6 77:2 86:12 90:11 91:12 99:17 102:7,8,15 104:7 106:12,17 110:8,18 116:8 117:13,15 118:3 120:20 129:5,16 130:15,22 131:9,23 134:6 135:9,10,24 136:1,13 137:13 141:25 145:1 146:19 148:14 150:5 151:13,16 152:8 157:16 158:4 158:10 160:3 168:2 173:6 174:18 182:11 184:21 191:22 192:10 194:16

goal (1) 41:8 gobbled (1) 192:12 goes (14) 42:22 43:3

46:2 51:14 55:10 62:20 73:20 86:15 95:24 96:1 108:6 110:2 120:9 130:4

going (63) 14:1,3,23 14:25 15:8 16:6 17:24 29:6,7,9 32:11 35:10 41:12 55:6 56:10 64:11 64:13 68:7,9 71:12 73:13 78:18,19 80:13,18,21,22 81:13 86:17 90:16 90:20 91:20 92:21 94:18 98:6,8 99:17 102:12 110:21 111:19 112:7 120:10 121:2,16,25 123:9 124:12 138:16 142:2 148:7 156:12 161:11 165:15,17 167:19 167:24 168:11 169:15 192:3,5,12 193:13 194:7

good (34) 8:25 33:20 37:4 44:8,13,16,19 44:25 45:10,15,20 45:24 49:2 70:10 76:21 77:20 98:5 108:3,25 132:24 133:11 134:9 149:5 150:21 152:20 159:17 163:15 169:11 173:7 179:17 180:9 192:1 195:19,23

goods (3) 81:24 85:13 90:10

goodwill (2) 60:12 156:13

Google (5) 74:2,3

77:20 90:7 167:7

Gordon (1) 124:18 government (3)

125:16 127:5 132:3 granted (2) 139:5

141:6

grasp (1) 106:12 grateful (3) 7:17 11:12

12:6

greater (5) 35:11 109:12 129:2,4 175:2

greatly (1) 191:24 grew (1) 126:19 grip (1) 65:9

group (2) 149:21 153:4
group’s (1) 30:10 growing (1) 135:20 growth (2) 47:4 147:6 guard (5) 72:9,10,13

72:15 75:21 guidance (20) 40:16

50:5 52:17,19,20 53:20 54:15,16 58:12,18,20 59:2,6 59:6,12,13,15,18 61:5 187:12

guide (1) 190:4 Guriev (2) 107:8

152:14

Guriev’s (1) 152:11

GVA (6) 70:15 71:7,19 74:22 78:8 180:4

H

half (10) 51:24 116:16 117:2 118:21 143:10,23 144:24 145:2 151:21 191:18

halfway (3) 26:13 110:11 138:23

hand (1) 107:17 handed (4) 64:22

108:9 119:1 123:2 handled (2) 110:3

112:12 handling (4) 99:21

101:23 102:1 105:4 hands (5) 40:14 77:18

107:18 169:13 182:10

hang (2) 184:22

191:14 happen (1) 167:9

happened (4) 108:21 145:8 181:22 189:7

happening (1) 35:12 happens (1) 6:13 happy (6) 4:8,9 5:17

107:21,22 169:23 hard (7) 3:4 12:20

109:19 134:11,15 134:22 140:14

harder (1) 107:23 hatching (1) 160:7 heading (7) 36:5 42:8

54:21 56:2,11 63:23 117:8
headset (3) 9:2 14:23 25:24

hear (7) 9:13 14:16,23 15:5,7,17 104:21 heard (4) 9:15 14:11

128:9 141:14 hearing (2) 1:9 14:17 Heathrow (3) 87:17

89:8,9

hectare (3) 112:12

118:9 183:22 hectares (6) 109:11 109:13 112:18 114:14 115:15

120:5

help (9) 7:21 8:9 17:9 24:20 107:14 116:25 162:24 191:13 194:19

helpful (1) 32:13 helpfully (4) 24:3 151:5,9,10

hesitate (2) 8:18 11:7

high (7) 76:22 112:13 119:18 120:8 135:8 150:3 163:23

higher (9) 34:7 35:7 35:22 118:22 120:19 131:12 149:7,10 177:25

highest (7) 90:24 92:20 93:1,9 137:22 141:10 149:25

highway (1) 158:24 HILDYARD (173) 1:4,9

1:16 2:1,8,21 3:19 3:25 4:4,6,15 5:8 5:19 6:3,17,25 7:5 7:25 8:6,11,13,18 9:7,18 11:9,13 13:8 13:13 14:7 15:3,23 16:1,13,18 17:20 17:23 25:17,21 31:24 32:3,7,10,18 38:8,14,18,22 58:13 59:1,10 63:8 64:10,12,16,23 65:4,7,23 66:5 70:1 70:3 82:23 83:1,7 83:16 87:12,23 88:2,5,19,24 89:8 89:17 95:1 104:21 105:11 106:4,7,11 106:15,19,21,25 107:3,5,12,19,24 108:1,14,18,20,25 114:5,9 118:5 119:2 128:14,16 134:1,7,9,13,17,23 134:25 135:4,7,13 135:16 136:1,7 143:15,17,20 151:3 151:23 152:6,17,20 157:6,15,19 160:24 162:6,12,15,20,24 165:3,14 167:10,14 173:19 174:21 175:1,5 181:14 182:7,10,12,15,18 182:21 184:23 186:19,23 187:4,8 187:17,20,25 188:2 188:23 189:5,13 190:19 191:1,4,12 192:3,18,25 193:2 193:12,19,24 194:3 194:7,20 195:1,11 195:23

hired (2) 130:20,20

Historical (1) 77:9 hmm (33) 19:11 22:2

27:12 31:8,12 34:9 42:11 46:7,25 62:23 68:22 69:5 69:10,25 71:6,24 89:25 94:14 96:4 110:17 112:6 120:22 124:9 128:6 139:12 144:10,21 145:24 149:23 172:6 178:20 185:2 185:6

hold (2) 66:15 168:12 honest (1) 188:7 hope (9) 9:11 13:1

66:6 167:24 190:8 190:24 191:2 193:16,21

hoped (3) 65:1 71:14 106:10

hopefully (2) 1:13

192:14 horizontal (1) 164:5 hotel (2) 84:12,22 hotels (1) 55:1

hour (6) 107:22 108:2 151:19,21 191:17 191:17

hours (2) 151:19 191:7

house (9) 72:9,10,13 72:15 75:21 94:24 95:4 175:1,3

housekeeping (7) 1:3 65:16 186:22 191:8 192:9 197:3,7

houses (2) 94:6,11 huge (5) 84:15 100:23

131:3 167:24 193:22
hundreds (2) 176:10

176:11 husband (1) 18:23

hypothetical (1) 57:15 hypothetically (1)

140:22

I

idea (2) 31:23 159:17 identified (5) 18:15
53:13 172:7 178:25 183:2

identifies (2) 115:18 115:19

identify (12) 19:25 21:5 67:6,20 83:4 83:10 108:15 113:4 113:24 114:1 130:4 179:23

identifying (2) 113:3 145:4

IFRS (10) 22:21,25 23:7,10,15 49:24 50:10,11,14,16

ignorant (1) 162:6 illogically (1) 190:12 illuminate (2) 134:18

134:19

imagine (4) 155:1

166:7 174:23 175:21
immediate (1) 166:18 immediately (2) 15:12

119:11 impact (1) 61:1 impacts (1) 47:2 implausible (1)

153:22

implementation (1)

42:4

implication (1) 23:13 important (16) 9:8

23:2,15 26:5 35:18 35:21 36:20 67:19 102:7 141:1 158:21 162:9,19 163:4 164:2,9

importing (1) 85:12 impossible (1) 175:25 improved (1) 78:5 improvement (1)

136:3 improvements (9)

52:24 73:10 75:2 76:13 77:16 78:10 78:14 137:3 155:25

improving (1) 101:11 inappropriate (4) 80:1

121:19 173:5

176:20 incentive (1) 184:7

include (5) 46:10 73:4 161:21,25 166:17

included (4) 27:15 60:7 153:11 174:15

includes (2) 132:5 189:25

including (1) 140:7 income (47) 28:6,16 28:18,18,19,20

29:8,11,20 34:13 40:19 41:14 57:13 57:25 62:13,21 63:13 79:10,21 80:6 89:5 91:7 92:1 92:5,6 93:15,17,23 93:24 94:3,7,18 95:22 122:23 155:6 155:21 156:12,15 157:3,14 168:19 169:9,20 171:5,6,7 180:5

income-based (2)

28:24 29:17

incorporate (1)

157:20 incorrect (1) 127:9 increase (4) 77:17,25

78:14 116:5

increased (3) 137:19 143:11 153:24 increasing (1) 165:9 Incremental (1) 117:8

independently (2)

69:20 138:1

INDEX (1) 197:1 indexate (1) 148:9 indexing (1) 148:4 indicate (1) 193:3 indicated (3) 4:10

8:17 65:17 indicates (2) 66:16

68:4 indication (1) 37:1 indicative (1) 192:7 indicator (3) 56:17

57:1 112:17 industrial (29) 20:1 56:21,22 75:18

82:17 84:1,3,21 126:5,12,19,21,25 147:14 166:22 167:3 178:25 179:6 179:8 183:20,23 184:1,4,10,13,16 185:8 186:8,12

industry (2) 60:25 63:18

inevitably (1) 15:15 influence (3) 47:25

121:20 131:4

information (35)

31:20 33:15 46:3,8 46:23 49:7 69:3 76:25 77:3,9,19,24 103:8,18,22 104:9 104:18 105:20 109:6 110:9 111:15 111:23 112:3 117:10,14,25 119:23,24 121:3 138:21 141:9 159:25 160:5 174:10 178:6

informed (1) 12:12 infrastructural (1)

118:9 infrastructure (5)

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

203

April 8, 2016 Day 35

115:21 116:5 136:9 118:11,22 119:20 8:11,13,18 9:7,18
137:3 175:17 120:16 121:12,14 11:9,13 13:8,13
ingredient (1) 163:19 133:5,7,9,25 134:3 14:7 15:3,23 16:1
initial (1) 139:3 137:9 138:17 141:7 16:13,18 17:20,23
initially (2) 27:13 141:11 145:11,22 25:17,21 31:24
32:24 171:3 32:3,7,10,18 38:8
inject (4) 140:11 investments (1) 38:14,18,22 58:13
141:3,19 142:3 177:23 59:1,10 63:8 64:10
ink (1) 195:9 investor (9) 43:9 64:12,16,23 65:4,7
input (7) 33:17 42:4 84:18 94:7,12,18 65:23 66:5 70:1,3
48:11,13 49:13 126:23 171:2 179:7 82:23 83:1,7,16
97:7 120:14 184:8 87:12,23 88:2,5,19
inputs (11) 36:20 investors (4) 36:13 88:24 89:8,17 95:1
37:21 42:14 48:15 131:13 144:18 104:21 105:11
48:15,16,17,17 145:6 106:4,7,11,15,19
96:8,22 123:25 invited (1) 53:14 106:21,25 107:3,5
inside (6) 3:19,23,24 inviting (2) 107:7,10 107:12,19,24 108:1
4:1,2,4 involve (2) 92:22 108:14,18,20,25
inspect (1) 67:15 96:13 114:5,9 118:5
inspection (3) 3:16 involved (2) 52:25 119:2 128:14,16
5:11,12 57:14 134:1,7,9,13,17,23
installations (1) 56:24 involvement (1) 108:5 134:25 135:4,7,13
Institute (1) 63:3 IRE (3) 20:1 22:17 135:16 136:1,7
instructed (5) 24:24 27:20 143:15,17,20 151:3
25:4 26:3,17,24 Ireland (4) 19:15,16 151:23 152:6,17,20
instructing (1) 6:22 19:16,18 157:6,15,19 160:24
instruction (1) 187:19 irrelevant (19) 21:10 162:6,12,15,20,24
instructions (15) 24:1 21:16 23:19,24 165:3,14 167:10,14
24:5 26:13,14 25:10,11,18,19,22 173:19 174:21
27:10,17,19,24 25:22 26:9 34:15 175:1,5 181:14
29:23 30:24 31:3,5 85:5 115:6,12 182:7,10,12,15,18
31:9,16,22 116:7 184:11,20 182:21 184:23
insufficient (1) 148:8 186:10 186:19,23 187:4,8
Insurance (2) 28:5,10 island (1) 119:11 187:17,20,25 188:2
integrated (3) 158:13 issue (10) 12:19 96:2 188:23 189:5,13
161:13,16 108:5,7 113:21 190:19 191:1,4,12
intended (3) 5:1 36:1 142:8 173:1 191:11 192:3,18,25 193:2
82:20 192:19 194:12 193:12,19,24 194:3
intends (1) 7:7 issued (2) 33:13 52:25 194:7,20 195:1,11
intention (1) 6:21 issues (4) 53:10,13 195:23
interest (2) 55:22 54:13 193:20 justification (1) 2:18
56:18 item (3) 31:9 34:3 justify (1) 113:5
interested (1) 38:11 155:8
internal (3) 49:4 51:12 items (2) 26:19 30:4 K
72:21 IVS (18) 39:9,11 40:16 Kalininsky (2) 186:2,5
international (19) 44:6 53:3,7 54:10
keep (8) 4:9 30:23,25
20:3,4 21:10 23:3,7 54:18,22 55:13
49:4 122:25 136:16
23:9,11 33:3 37:23 57:12,20 62:4,14
161:12 165:12
39:9,22 50:11 81:9 91:23 150:22
keeping (1) 9:1
58:22 84:10,11 156:7
keeps (1) 160:11
85:7 90:23 155:24 IVSC (14) 33:13 41:20
kept (2) 5:13,18
180:11 42:7 50:10 52:9,16
Kerch (1) 22:7
internet (1) 141:9 52:24 53:1,11,23
key (3) 47:2 66:17
interposed (2) 107:8 54:17 58:18 59:7
144:12
151:7 62:8
Kiev (2) 19:12 21:1
Interpreted (2) 12:15 IVSs (1) 53:19
kilometre (1) 176:11
13:23
kilometres (3) 100:9
interpreters (1) 8:17 J
102:3,7
interrupt (1) 11:8
January (1) 22:18 kind (10) 2:12 24:8
intervening (1) 153:20
jetty (1) 119:15 42:8 49:22 85:8
introduce (1) 7:19
JLL (1) 25:1 99:6 102:4,5
invalid (1) 43:19
joint (4) 11:7,17,25 176:13 179:5
inventory (1) 59:25
12:3 kindly (3) 7:20 65:22
invest (4) 94:12 138:3
Jones (2) 24:25 191:5
145:6 168:2
177:18 KIT (1) 159:25
invested (1) 168:3
judge (1) 12:24 know (49) 1:17 2:1
investigate (2) 24:18
judged (1) 36:15 4:1,19,20 9:16
126:4
July (3) 10:1 75:9 77:4 16:19,19,20 18:19
investigating (1)
jumping (2) 82:11 18:20 31:19 32:8
77:13
165:18 47:14 58:19 62:7
investigation (1)
June (7) 53:4 75:7 65:9 77:6 80:17,17
126:10
110:22 147:4 83:16 95:5,12,15
investing (1) 38:11
148:16 149:2 102:20 134:5 138:9
investment (38) 30:16
177:19 140:8,21 141:12
32:6 37:1 42:10,14
JUSTICE (173) 1:4,9,16 142:10,16 147:8
43:5,8,14,20,23
2:1,8,21 3:19,25 150:21 155:14
61:13,13 64:1,7
4:4,6,15 5:8,19 6:3 159:7 164:24,24
78:4 92:24 94:3
6:17,25 7:5,25 8:6 168:14 173:1 182:5
99:3 103:15 118:10

182:8 187:10,21 188:23 189:15 191:9 192:19 195:19

knowledge (4) 8:19 63:17 67:6 183:9 knowledgeably (2)

39:16 40:7 known (3) 39:4 63:13

124:19

knows (6) 7:24 8:1,3,5 8:8 16:10

Krasnogvardeyskiy (1)

186:4

L

label (1) 85:17 lack (1) 120:3
Lair (5) 75:6,9,12 78:3 78:4

land (130) 39:7,23,25 40:13 41:4,22 56:24 61:18 67:20 67:21 69:13,14,18 69:22 70:3,8 75:2 79:25 81:22 88:16 88:25 89:7,8,11,12 90:1,3 94:5 96:14 96:19 98:3 109:13 113:10,11 118:13 125:7,8,12 126:5,7 126:12,19 127:1,4 127:5,9,16,18,22 127:24 130:8 136:23 138:4 146:23 147:14 149:24 150:3 153:2 153:6,7,11,22,24 154:2,7,9,12,14,22 154:22 155:22,25 156:1,3,6,16 158:18 160:8,16,22 160:25 161:1,5,20 161:20,20,24,24 162:3 163:5,21 164:16 165:6,20 166:3,14 167:2 168:18 169:11,14 169:24 170:12 172:12 174:13 178:25 179:6,25 180:20 181:11,11 181:12,16,18 183:20,23 184:1,5 184:6,9,10,10,12 184:13,16 185:8,10 185:22,23 186:8,13

landowner (1) 167:25

Lang (2) 24:25 177:18 language (4) 8:25

12:19 13:20 14:13 languages (2) 12:16

16:12

large (3) 127:17,21 136:5

larger (1) 66:4 largest (1) 128:11 LaSalle (2) 24:25

177:18

late (1) 119:5 law (1) 125:16

lawyers (2) 9:3 194:5 lay (1) 167:11

laying (1) 120:4 layout (2) 159:21,23 lead (1) 121:25 learned (4) 1:21 6:15

65:19 189:1

learnt (4) 2:23 3:1,7 location (4) 149:5 64:8,8,11,15,17,18
5:12 174:23,23,23 64:24,24 65:1,6,6
lease (2) 132:4 181:3 locations (4) 18:14 65:16,25 66:6 70:2
leave (3) 54:10 107:9 19:25 175:6 176:15 70:5 71:10 82:25
187:2 logic (4) 131:21 183:4 83:1,6,6,14,14,22
lecture (1) 27:4 183:10,11 83:23 87:20,24
left (5) 20:6 75:20 logistical (1) 16:23 88:3,9,10 89:18
129:6 192:14 logistically (1) 15:5 90:5 95:10,11
194:10 logistics (3) 105:8 105:3,10,10 106:10
left-hand (3) 74:14 115:21 177:23 106:10,14,14,17,17
129:12 160:13 London (4) 94:11 106:20,23,23 107:2
lending (2) 145:13,15 163:24 179:15 107:4,4,17,24,25
length (2) 39:15 40:5 190:10 107:25 108:13,13
Leningradskaya (4) long (19) 3:11 9:8 108:17,19,23,23
126:21,25 179:6,9 16:7,8 34:15 35:17 109:4 114:13,16
LeningradskayaObla… 56:5 64:11 107:15 118:24 119:4
184:12 107:20 113:13 128:15,17 134:6,8
lesser (1) 3:21 124:14 137:20 134:8,11,14,20,21
let’s (13) 35:1 67:4,16 155:8 182:18 187:7 134:24 135:1,6,9
76:17 80:8 84:12 187:8 189:24 192:5 135:14,17 136:13
94:10,20 121:16 longer (7) 15:15 34:14 136:13,18 143:16
130:15 155:1 36:1 58:14 124:10 143:16,18,22 151:1
179:15,16 124:23 191:15 151:1,5,12 152:1,1
letter (1) 192:20 look (71) 7:9 9:21 152:13,19,19,24
level (5) 118:9 135:8 13:6,14 25:8 27:22 158:1,2 161:1
140:11 141:3 30:6 41:17 42:8 162:25 165:11,11
144:16 44:4 54:20 59:15 165:20 167:17
levels (2) 113:12 62:9 65:5 66:18 173:21,21 176:3
143:12 68:10 72:9 74:16 177:5 182:7,8,8,11
liability (1) 143:1 74:17 76:10 79:18 182:15,17,20,24
licences (2) 59:25 82:5 84:13 89:7,23 184:24,24 185:19
159:2 90:1 95:20 98:23 185:19 186:16,16
life (1) 181:2 100:15,17,23 186:25,25 187:5,15
lights (1) 175:17 102:20 103:1,11 187:19,19,21,21
likewise (1) 186:18 108:15 109:7,9 188:1,14,14 189:1
limit (2) 105:9 106:12 118:24 119:6 189:1,7,12 190:17
limitation (2) 115:19 121:10 123:13 190:23 191:2,2,16
115:20 125:18 126:24 191:16 192:22,22
limitations (2) 115:24 132:11 133:8 193:1,1,10,16,16
115:24 135:23 137:10 193:20 194:2,4,4
limited (4) 108:7 145:21,25 148:7 195:4,4,7,9,22,22
119:8 142:13 193:5 156:22 157:3,4 197:6
line (10) 56:15 62:1 159:20,22 162:25 Lordship (57) 1:5,7,14
68:23 72:20,22 167:5,6 169:16 1:17 3:13 7:24
73:14 103:6 105:15 170:25 171:20,21 10:24 13:4 16:2,10
118:18 121:23 172:1,22,23 176:8 16:17 17:4 21:2
linear (1) 117:4 176:14 177:4 29:13 31:15 32:21
lines (1) 73:8 179:18 183:17 34:10 38:3 39:20
link (1) 73:13 184:7 47:17,20,21 56:4,6
LinkedIn (3) 18:10 looked (9) 5:25 37:12 56:8 64:18,19
19:14 22:14 62:6 76:24 128:4 65:22 66:4,7,25
list (10) 25:16 26:19 128:18 171:13 67:11 68:2 88:13
26:20 27:8,10 185:24,25 109:4 113:25
30:21 31:5 32:23 looking (23) 35:5 116:25 119:4 123:9
46:22 156:2 39:20 83:2 88:10 134:11,15,16
listed (1) 23:5 88:11 90:7 96:13 135:11,14 146:2
listen (2) 15:20 99:12 115:3 122:18 182:9 183:25
192:11 122:18 124:25 184:15 185:1,7
listening (1) 164:18 125:9 138:4,5 186:17 187:2,22,22
listings’ (1) 152:17 142:17 149:11 188:16,21 194:11
literally (2) 1:18 3:6 157:2,8,9,13 Lordship’s (8) 32:16
litigation (1) 18:2 170:22 174:11 66:13 89:21 107:17
little (6) 23:25 35:3 looks (5) 150:20 134:22 143:19
109:19 138:22 156:19 166:10 173:17 187:1
166:24 182:14 171:14,25 lose (1) 102:14
live (2) 18:15 19:5 Lord (224) 1:10 2:21 loss (1) 122:6
lived (4) 21:18,19,20 2:23,23 3:23 4:2,5 losses (1) 134:4
23:20 4:5,8 5:3,3,9,25 6:8 lost (1) 119:3
LLC (6) 28:2,4,5,7,10 6:8,20,20 7:4,4,7 lot (22) 18:6 21:21
28:10 7:12,17 8:10 11:2,7 29:1 41:10 49:21
LLP (1) 17:14 11:7,10 12:2,7,8 58:24 76:13 84:24
load (2) 165:21 166:1 13:1,9,14,25,25 96:17 101:9 119:22
loaded (1) 72:23 14:19,19 15:24,25 127:4 129:25
loading (6) 73:22 15:25 16:2,2,15,15 134:14 151:14
119:18 163:8 16:24,24 17:22,24 152:7 167:4,7
164:15,21 165:25 25:19,19,23,23 183:6,8 184:4,10
loans (2) 145:19,20 28:25 32:11,19,19 lots (3) 95:3 187:6,6
local (1) 60:25 38:23 47:19 58:15 lower (5) 100:5
located (1) 166:18 59:5,15 61:25 63:9 101:22 136:24,25

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

204

April 8, 2016 Day 35

177:24

LUDMILA (2) 8:15 197:4

Luncheon (1) 109:2

M

Maggs (4) 194:18,23 195:2,5
Magnum (6) 1:11 3:4 3:9 24:14 32:20,22 main (4) 49:20 73:20

120:3 175:11 major (2) 137:3
145:22 making (6) 41:21

115:7 119:21 145:19 163:14 179:10

man (1) 164:15 managed (1) 30:10 manager (2) 60:7,11 mandatory (1) 53:19 map (27) 65:25 66:5,9

66:11,19 67:1,7,12 67:17,23 68:3 89:19,23,23 118:24 118:25 119:1,2,6 142:12 159:22 160:11,13 161:7,10 162:14 174:11

maps (4) 67:16 68:13 68:14 175:24

March (2) 110:22 117:16

margin (2) 100:3 134:8

marine (3) 75:3,5 88:15

Maritime (1) 87:17 marked (1) 68:25 market (158) 21:13,14

26:18,24 27:3,5,6 36:6,10,11,13,17 36:19,21,21,24 37:1,5,6,7,9,9,12 37:14,18,22 38:2,6 38:9,14,24 39:3,6,8 39:12,19,21,23 40:9,11,15,18,20 40:22,24 41:4,6,8 41:18,22,23 42:2,4 42:17,24 43:6,12 43:13,21,23 45:4 47:25 48:1,2,4,14 48:15,16,17 49:3 60:6,10,24 61:12 61:14,14,21 62:13 62:21 63:16,19,25 64:6 78:18 80:7 89:13 90:24 91:6 91:10 92:1,4,6 93:15 94:22 95:2,6 95:6,7 96:10,10,12 97:14,22,22,24 98:3 102:5,14 103:19,20 104:11 104:11 112:25 113:3,4,14,25 116:5 120:19 122:12 125:6 127:7 128:2,25 144:8,14 144:15,24 145:22 146:12 148:6 149:1 149:16 150:22,23 155:16,17,22 158:6 161:19 167:19 168:18 169:14 170:7,9,11 171:2

171:13,23 178:22 44:3,17 57:13,20 minimum (1) 121:11
179:24 180:22 63:13 170:7,23 Ministry (1) 139:6
181:4 182:2,3,5 method’ (1) 57:21 minus (9) 98:24 99:8
183:6 185:4 methodological (1) 122:1,6,10,10,14
marketing (2) 39:15 39:8 123:13 133:8
40:6 methods (5) 41:3,5,11 minute (6) 1:18 30:23
markets (3) 127:15,22 41:12 57:10 81:20 133:12 181:5
144:19 metre (3) 126:6 184:22
Marsal (1) 28:3 178:25 186:8 minutes (13) 2:19
material (7) 3:14 5:5 metres (10) 69:6,7 29:8 31:13 41:13
61:1 77:15 153:13 158:22 159:3,17 61:25 65:12 107:21
178:17,18 162:10 167:11 152:20 163:25
materially (2) 77:17 175:12,16 176:9 182:11,20,21
77:25 Meylanova (1) 20:18 192:11
materials (4) 6:11,14 middle (8) 21:25 miraculously (1) 15:15
6:15 114:11 22:16 94:11 145:25 mirrored (1) 144:16
mathematically (1) 179:15 183:20 misheard (2) 25:13,20
34:15 184:2,16 misleading (2) 56:19
mathematics (1) military (1) 127:6 146:11
124:14 Millard (76) 1:20 2:4 missing (2) 31:9
matter (8) 7:3 9:8 2:23 3:7,15,21 5:6 163:20
26:10 124:14 5:9 11:18,22 13:11 mistake (1) 172:15
189:23 190:9 25:5 59:5 79:24 mistaken (1) 148:20
193:17,22 82:2,6 83:8 86:15 misunderstanding (1)
matters (9) 6:6 7:12 95:17,21 96:1,24 4:16
11:1 12:1 20:16 97:5,12 114:20 mm (34) 19:11 22:2
151:14 190:5 191:8 123:2,7 125:23 27:12 30:3 31:8,12
192:9 126:4,11,14 127:2 34:9 42:11 46:7,25
mature (1) 144:19 128:3,17,23 129:7 62:23 68:22 69:5
maximise (1) 70:10 129:18 130:4,14 69:10,25 71:6,24
maximises (1) 154:13 131:23 132:7,23 89:25 94:14 96:4
maximum (8) 69:19 133:1 135:14 137:6 110:17 112:6
69:19 104:15 144:7 145:4,21 120:22 124:9 128:6
105:18 112:19 146:3,9,20 147:2 139:12 144:10,21
113:5 120:7,11 147:21 148:14 145:24 149:23
Mayfair (1) 175:1 149:9,15 163:9 172:6 178:20 185:2
mean (35) 17:19 170:17 171:13 185:6
25:21 30:16 34:12 172:11,19,21 model (20) 36:20
35:6 38:10,12,14 173:11 174:2 41:24 43:21,22
38:16 40:22 44:12 176:14,20 177:6 44:9,21 45:1,16,21
47:22 48:10 56:25 178:4,9,22 179:13 46:10 48:6,10
60:20 72:15 75:5 179:20 180:19 57:18 58:2,9 79:13
107:5 108:17 122:5 185:3,21 186:11 79:22 131:18,20
122:12,21 123:11 Millard’s (38) 2:20 132:20
126:1 134:18 151:3 12:22 13:3 32:14 modelling (7) 29:11
154:23 160:24 32:15,17 52:8 63:1 45:19,21 48:9,23
162:12,13 165:18 64:15,25 65:2 66:1 98:7,9
176:25 188:13 81:3 85:15,19 models (1) 45:7
191:15,19 90:12 95:12 114:18 modern (2) 105:8
meaning (3) 9:5 14:14 123:1,4 125:22 133:22
177:24 128:1 129:17 135:1 moment (3) 7:9 50:10
means (5) 38:25 39:3 144:6 146:17 149:1 133:10
47:15 100:3 115:22 162:25 170:3,22 Monday (18) 107:9
meant (2) 4:13 191:18 171:22 172:18 151:6,22 152:10,14
meeting (1) 139:3 173:2,22,25 179:23 152:15,18 187:2
meetings (1) 141:24 183:1,17 190:10,23 191:9,22
meets (1) 156:7 million (60) 98:24 192:13,15 195:17
member (2) 10:14 99:8 100:16,18,24 195:18,24 196:2
18:7 110:25 111:3,5,5,6 money (14) 133:21
memorandum (24) 111:16 121:2,4,5,6 137:7 142:21,22
30:18 32:6 76:25 121:14,16,21,23 145:19 157:11
77:3 103:8,15,18 122:1,4,14,15,16 163:14,15 164:11
104:9,18 105:20 122:20,24 123:20 165:13 166:8
109:6 110:9 111:15 123:24 129:1,9,21 167:24 168:3,7
112:4 117:10,14,17 129:23 130:5 monies (1) 140:9
117:25 119:23 132:11,12,17,22,24 months (6) 19:8,8,9
120:17 121:3 133:4,16,17,18,19 22:19 109:22 120:4
138:21 159:25 133:20,21 136:7,8 morning (12) 1:8 3:6
160:5 138:18 142:19 5:21 23:14 86:16
memorandum’s (1) 148:17,18 149:3,13 87:21 91:22,25
111:23 149:13 153:16,18 107:15,20 151:7
mention (3) 136:18 175:20,21 180:8 192:16
166:16 172:11 183:22 Moscow (10) 144:19
mentioned (3) 49:20 millions (1) 175:2 146:7 171:17,18
102:3 132:23 Milner (2) 192:18 174:16 177:13,18
method (22) 33:22,25 193:3 177:22 178:2,5
34:1 36:6,10,15 mind (6) 3:13 7:6 mother (1) 21:19
37:5,6,11,17 38:1 19:24 112:18 118:5 move (1) 16:11
41:16,22 42:9 44:1 190:11 movie (2) 159:4 165:1

MTPY (1) 110:4 173:17
multi-user (1) 136:9 notebooks (1) 6:9
multiplier (2) 121:24 noted (1) 79:20
127:12 notes (2) 6:9 163:1
November (2) 85:20
N 135:2
name (3) 20:2,2 number (41) 1:19
18:14 24:4 30:4,5,7
156:19
30:21 31:10 48:2
nation’s (1) 135:20
53:13 66:14,15
natural (6) 152:8,9
67:25 68:25 81:5
182:15,19,22
82:3 84:2,2 86:7,15
186:16
90:2 103:5,6
nature (2) 53:10
112:12 114:24
60:14
119:9,19,21 125:2
near (2) 162:17
133:24 137:14
191:25
144:23 148:13
nearby (1) 73:14
149:4 152:4 153:9
necessary (10) 8:21
174:14 176:16,18
61:6,9 73:2 138:25
185:11 186:3
139:2,5 140:19
numbers (6) 103:14
151:9 179:18
115:12 124:6
necessity (1) 141:12
131:20 132:19,21
need (40) 1:23 6:23

7:14 15:17 25:23
O
58:16 69:13 71:11
oath (2) 9:7 10:24
73:13 82:5 84:21
95:5,8 104:23 object (3) 2:8,14
106:5 115:14 117:3 65:19
117:19 121:14,21 objecting (2) 15:4
124:3 138:16 142:2 16:15
152:4 155:18 156:8 Oblast (4) 126:21,25
156:10 158:19 179:6,9
159:8,13 160:19,20 obligation (2) 3:11
162:6 163:22,23 188:6
173:10 185:19 obligations (2) 4:18
187:5 192:20 5:22
193:22 observations (4) 34:1
needed (1) 139:15 44:2 62:20 95:17
needs (1) 175:22 obvious (1) 84:18
negative (5) 98:24 obviously (14) 2:5
99:5,8 121:20 3:23 7:22 8:4 9:7
157:21 14:25 75:17 84:20
negotiate (2) 168:11 107:11 112:1
168:13 134:16 135:10
neighbour (1) 168:2 191:8 193:16
neighbouring (1) occasions (1) 13:6
167:25 occupation (3) 55:22
neither (2) 83:11 56:17 57:15
191:14 occupied (2) 127:5
net (3) 35:4,14 130:2 170:13
never (15) 20:17,17 ocean (1) 177:2
20:19,22,24 21:7 odd (1) 87:16
21:15,21 67:14,14 offer (2) 172:18
94:19 135:21 183:11
141:14 150:14 office (3) 19:4 21:4
164:7 181:6
new (7) 53:2 54:18,19 offices (1) 84:24
58:20 76:22 133:22 official (3) 21:4 66:10
194:17 140:6
nice (1) 75:23 officials (1) 140:10
nominal (1) 124:16 oh (8) 12:16 47:22
non (4) 1:24 29:1 63:9 64:18 91:17
130:19 155:19 95:24 101:8 162:15
non-draft (1) 33:13 oil (3) 138:8,8,13
non-property (1) okay (11) 9:17 15:3
156:14 50:1 80:24 84:8
nonsense (1) 88:7 95:25 107:12
normal (2) 188:22,24 116:10 176:18
normally (7) 43:1 46:3 179:14 195:9
46:9 62:16 65:20 Oktyabrskaya (2) 73:6
187:10 189:20 186:3
northern (1) 84:16 old (1) 181:25
not-unnatural (1) OMG (6) 77:17 108:24
186:19 149:21 150:16,20
note (17) 52:17,19,20 169:13
54:15,16 58:12,20 omitted (1) 31:18
59:2,6,6,15,18 60:5 once (2) 4:18 173:2
61:5 66:13 163:4 Onega (73) 37:8 68:2

68:8 81:4 82:10,21 83:3,9,17 84:9 86:9 101:3 108:12,20 158:3,6,7,11,18 159:21 160:7,15,22 161:4,7,16,20,24 162:3 163:1,17,20 163:20 164:14,16 164:20,22,24 165:8 165:20 166:1,12 167:2,20 168:16,17 168:24 169:9,13 170:4,18 171:23 172:9,12,20 174:19 176:9,16,18 177:8 178:23 179:25 180:9,17 181:1,9 181:12,18,23 185:4 185:14,16,22

ones (1) 176:10

open (10) 13:12 30:23 30:25 67:4,16 109:19 122:25,25 160:11 170:10

operate (14) 19:1,2,16 23:21 47:8 69:19 70:4,7 99:2 100:1 113:22 118:19 165:15 166:4

operates (4) 128:7 131:1 133:22 138:11

operating (4) 47:3 120:11 164:25 168:5

operation (5) 69:21 82:17 118:20 129:3 165:8

operational (1) 63:17 operations (1) 99:2 operator (8) 57:17

59:24 64:2 78:13 117:18 121:7 128:11 164:10

opinion (29) 11:1 12:1 25:6 26:18,24 34:19 80:6 83:10 85:21 86:1,2 95:12 95:21 136:22 137:20 138:3 142:19 146:4,16 149:1 152:25 158:6 162:5 172:18 178:12 184:1,15 188:7 190:5

opinions (1) 11:24 opposed (1) 127:16 opposing (1) 56:15 opposite (2) 132:15

158:21 option (2) 137:20

138:5

oral (1) 193:23 orange (3) 66:14,22

68:1

order (21) 36:2 44:6 61:14 69:12 70:20 76:23 78:14 92:24 97:20 98:1 99:11 119:17 138:15 139:13 140:9,10 158:17 175:19 180:18 188:22,24

ordered (1) 188:15 ordinary (2) 166:22

167:3

ore (1) 137:16 original (1) 64:19 originally (2) 53:1

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

205

April 8, 2016 Day 35

82:1

OT (1) 166:18

ought (4) 49:11 64:21 98:2 191:19

outcomes (1) 17:17 outlined (1) 104:8 output (1) 48:12 outside (5) 23:16

73:21 76:3,4 89:9 outsources (1) 166:18 overall (1) 159:23 overnight (1) 187:24 Overview (2) 33:25

54:21

owned (4) 28:2 155:7 160:8 161:3

owner (12) 22:17 36:22,23 154:10,11 155:5 163:7,13 164:11,12 165:5 166:7

owners (3) 154:12 164:6 168:6

ownership (2) 61:7,11 owning (1) 157:12 owns (1) 109:11

Oxus (7) 30:9 76:25 77:4 103:9 104:8 112:3 115:4

P

P1 (1) 160:17

P2 (1) 160:17

P3 (1) 160:18 pack (1) 3:6

page (99) 9:21 10:5 10:17 11:17,20 13:14 18:10 21:24 21:25 24:9,10,12 24:13,22 25:14,15 26:1,13 27:18,20 27:21 29:23,24,25 30:6,7 34:2 36:5 39:11 42:5,6 46:11 47:12 56:1 62:12 62:19 68:11 71:22 73:4 74:9 75:8,25 79:18 81:2,2 83:2 86:12,13,13 90:13 93:14 95:16,21,24 96:1 100:16 102:22 103:2 109:9,10,24 110:8,11,18,19,21 110:23 115:2 117:15 122:25 127:11 128:14,22 129:21 130:12,15 131:9 135:23,24 137:12 138:5,23 143:14 144:25 145:1,3 146:1,10 146:19,24 147:11 149:12 150:6 160:11 163:3 183:18 184:23 185:21 197:2

pages (2) 68:13 86:14 paid (11) 17:8,10,16

18:2 140:10 141:19 150:5,7,11,15 181:15

pan-European (1)

144:16

paper (26) 33:3,15,18 33:25 34:4,21 36:5 36:9 37:20 41:20 42:7 44:2 50:3,5 52:9 53:13,15

54:21 56:12 57:9 payable (1) 156:24 pick (4) 143:6 151:13 46:22 56:7,20 64:8 166:3 principle (1) 100:2
62:6,20 63:2 64:12 payables (1) 155:11 187:9 191:23 81:15 83:11 89:20 possible (5) 89:14 prior (2) 20:20 22:9
87:10 135:5 paying (1) 136:7 picture (3) 68:20,23 89:21,22 90:5,5,13 107:8,10 137:14,24 privatise (1) 125:17
papers (3) 62:25 payments (4) 140:5 74:12 101:4 106:17 possibly (3) 32:4 privatised (1) 125:12
86:15 192:16 140:25 141:18 pictures (1) 7:7 108:14 114:17 107:2 151:18 privileged (2) 2:25 5:7
paragraph (71) 24:22 142:1 piece (11) 40:8 67:20 115:1,7 118:24 potential (14) 16:11 pro (4) 12:14 17:2
26:1 27:25 29:25 pays’ (1) 100:1 89:12 93:19 100:18 145:13 151:1 28:21 54:11,25 18:5,6
36:8 37:3,16,20 pencilled-in (1) 195:6 100:19 103:25 152:17 167:17 56:16 63:24 115:18 probably (28) 6:9
38:4 39:11 42:12 peninsula (2) 22:8 113:11 126:3 177:5 182:15,16,19 127:17 136:25 11:11 22:23 25:23
42:19,22 44:4,15 175:3 132:20 180:20 182:22 193:8,20 141:20 157:3,14 33:23 34:22 45:13
45:11 46:2,24 people (6) 29:1 38:10 pieces (4) 103:24 194:4 169:19 172:8 59:8 70:21 74:11
54:22 55:7,10 49:4 157:16 168:6 126:25 184:5,13 pointed (2) 139:17 potential’ (1) 69:19 74:18 75:14 82:1
56:13,13 57:11 188:23 pink (2) 119:11,11 172:9 potentially (7) 14:21 82:25 103:14
59:16 60:5 63:14 perceived (1) 4:17 place (5) 54:16 59:6 pointing (1) 97:5 15:1 16:8 58:1 94:4 111:18,22 119:4,5
70:2 72:19 74:25 perceptions (1) 36:13 81:5 84:19 88:21 points (20) 32:12 101:23 142:2 126:9 141:18
77:8 81:8,15,17 performance (2) plan (4) 112:24 115:4 33:20 81:5,13,17 power (2) 118:14,15 145:18 146:7
93:14,20 95:20,23 57:16 112:17 152:13 162:12 81:20 83:3,10,15 practice (16) 32:12 152:18 159:4
96:25 97:2,3 101:2 performed (1) 79:20 planet (1) 85:1 86:7,16,18,19 33:21 37:4 44:8,13 173:14 182:17,20
101:3,6 103:11 perimeter (1) 89:9 planned (3) 30:10 115:5 123:14 44:16,19,25 45:10 problem (7) 12:9 93:9
109:20,20 112:3 period (22) 34:5,13,16 73:1 195:20 145:25 146:3 152:2 45:16,20,24 60:17 114:10 116:6
115:13 120:2 123:2 34:24,25 35:2,5,10 plans (2) 109:13 163:5 152:5 192:20 156:6 179:11 141:25 163:16,22
125:23 127:10 35:17,21 36:2 platforms (1) 72:24 pool (1) 142:13 189:13 problems (1) 134:5
128:3,18,22 131:25 42:15 98:18 108:24 play (1) 7:23 Popov (8) 25:6 101:2 pragmatically (1) 2:10 procedures (3) 21:12
137:15 138:24 119:24 124:7,10,15 playing (1) 132:19 101:5 102:3 115:3 pre-developed (2) 53:18 156:18
139:1,17 143:7,9 124:24 144:5 please (116) 1:5 8:14 115:5,18 167:1 92:18 93:4 proceed (2) 104:5
143:16 144:11,22 146:14 153:23 9:11,20 10:4,8 11:6 Popov’s (3) 101:1 predicted (1) 110:10 168:25
158:12 170:5,19 permission (2) 65:22 12:10,20,25 13:14 114:25 166:10 predictions (1) 120:10 proceedings (4) 10:6
177:15 183:19 139:15 18:9 20:25 21:23 Popov/Steadman (2) predominant (1) 14:9 10:18 11:4 12:4
paragraphs (14) 41:20 permissions (1) 22:15,16 23:25 193:13 195:13 prefer (6) 9:11 15:16 process (4) 24:20
42:1 55:5,8 56:9 139:19 24:2,8 26:12 27:16 port (104) 66:11 15:20,21 151:24 53:23 139:10
57:7 81:7,17 85:22 permits (5) 138:25 27:23 29:13,22 77:22 81:6 84:13 191:24 189:22
103:1,2 109:10 139:2,5 140:3,19 30:6,23,25 31:1 84:13,16,17 85:2,4 preferable (1) 191:16 processes (1) 36:12
115:2 163:2 perpetuity (1) 47:4 32:14,24 33:24 86:21 87:15,17,19 preferenced (1) 43:12 produce (3) 6:11 86:1
parameters (3) 47:25 person (1) 126:19 34:2 36:4,8 41:19 87:25,25 88:2,3,4,5 preferred (1) 144:18 193:14
157:21 194:11 person’s (1) 161:5 42:5 44:4 46:21 88:12,13,13,20,21 prejudiced (1) 194:23 produced (3) 24:25
paraphrasing (1) 54:6 personal (2) 18:18 52:1,5,6,7 55:6 88:23,25 89:2,2,19 premises (1) 174:1 32:8 33:3
pardon (1) 11:14 19:22 56:1 57:9 58:11 89:24 90:2,3,3,4,9 premium (6) 126:6 producers (2) 164:6,7
pare (2) 16:3 151:20 Petersburg (63) 21:6,8 59:19 61:24 62:11 96:16 99:21 100:6 127:1 146:23 producing (1) 28:6
parked (1) 90:8 21:9,14,16 38:17 63:23 68:3,7,10 100:21 101:5,9,22 157:24 179:2 productive (1) 157:7
part (13) 12:3 38:17 66:11 77:22,22 70:13,15,25 71:18 109:12 114:23 185:22 profession (3) 54:3,4
40:2 73:7 78:11 84:13,14,17 85:2 74:4,15 75:10,25 115:8,20,25 118:7 preparations (1) 57:6
82:20,21 90:16 88:20 89:19,24 76:6 77:1,2 79:16 118:25 119:6 126:7 194:22 professional (4) 11:1
139:7,10 140:22 96:17 100:7 101:5 80:15 85:14 89:18 127:3,8 128:12 prepare (2) 63:15 12:1 18:21 39:4
153:7 155:16 101:10,11,16,22 90:11 93:12 95:11 131:6,24 132:2,4 194:17 professionals (1) 54:7
participant (2) 38:15 109:12 114:23 95:11 97:3 98:11 134:2 135:17,18,19 prepared (6) 9:22 Professor (7) 107:8
42:17 115:8,20,25 118:25 101:1 102:15 109:4 135:20 136:5,10,12 10:6,17 12:23 152:11,14 194:18
participants (4) 36:13 119:7 126:5 127:4 109:7,8 110:18 136:14,20,25 137:1 115:4 157:16 194:23 195:2,5
38:9 43:12 61:15 127:8 131:6 139:7 112:8 113:4 114:16 137:2,9,9 138:12 preparing (1) 2:4 profile (3) 18:11 19:14
particular (12) 20:15 139:23 141:8,10,11 114:18,25 115:3 139:7,23,24 140:1 present (5) 22:18 35:4 22:14
23:17 36:22 38:12 142:12,14 144:19 116:8 117:6 118:3 140:6 141:8,10 35:14 98:23 108:11 profit (9) 60:6 70:10
40:13 53:9 60:10 146:7 164:1 166:20 120:20 123:1 125:3 142:12,14,14 160:8 presently (2) 7:7 89:1 122:5 130:2 154:13
63:16 64:2 172:25 166:24 171:16,18 125:21 127:25 161:7,24 163:13,19 presents (1) 53:17 157:17 165:17
188:10 193:8 172:1,5 173:9 129:5 130:22 164:12,14,15 165:5 preserves (1) 190:15 166:4,5
particularly (3) 21:16 176:22 177:22 135:24 137:12 165:22 166:17,20 pressure (2) 101:19 profitabilities (1)
95:7 145:15 178:7 179:1 180:3 138:20 142:11 166:23 168:9,12 102:1 108:11
parties (3) 39:16 40:6 183:23 184:2,6,16 143:4,14 144:6 174:15 176:6,22 pressurise (1) 151:3 profitability (3) 56:16
189:22 185:9 186:9,13 145:1 150:5 158:2 180:2 184:6 presumably (2) 51:10 60:10 69:20
partner (5) 7:19 8:7 phases (6) 109:21 159:21,24 160:2,12 ports (19) 56:23 84:16 95:2 Profitable (1) 69:20
18:21,23 20:12 110:13,21 111:20 160:13 166:9 170:2 86:25 87:14 88:11 pretty (2) 64:14 profits (2) 57:21 63:13
parts (1) 170:11 111:25 117:14 177:4 178:21 96:19 100:17,21,25 192:23 programme (2)
party (2) 163:7 166:19 photo (1) 75:23 195:14 125:12 128:5,7,8 prevailing (1) 178:1 139:21 141:16
pass (1) 108:4 photograph (4) 20:8,8 plot (14) 78:3 81:22 128:18,24 129:1,8 previous (2) 17:12 programmes (1)
passed (1) 3:6 68:20 74:6 88:15 153:2 161:24 129:20 130:25 94:24 145:16
Paul (1) 7:19 photographic (1) 5:11 163:21 165:20 pose (1) 16:7 previously (6) 1:21,25 project (11) 52:25
pause (17) 15:18 photographs (31) 166:22 167:3 posing (1) 15:7 30:9 52:25 86:8 53:9 110:11,20
16:21 52:6 55:7,17 1:19,25 2:1,24 3:1 176:16,18 183:20 position (17) 4:21 195:7 141:4,22 142:4,5
71:10 81:18 91:14 3:5,8,15,18 4:11,14 183:24 184:1 7:10 8:9 14:18 price (22) 40:12 48:2 142:20,20,23
91:16 93:6 101:8 4:21 5:3,15,16,20 plots (5) 79:25 166:14 23:22 95:9 99:8 94:23 128:24 132:8 projected (2) 117:24
114:19 145:2 146:4 6:1,5 7:8 71:1,3,5 176:17 185:22,23 130:7 134:2 168:10 150:5,6,10,15,23 124:7
185:19 186:24 72:2 74:3 75:13 plus (5) 70:11 123:21 173:24 184:14 153:15 168:13 projections (3) 37:25
187:20 76:2,4,6,9 78:3 124:8 147:14 148:3 185:7 186:11 170:1 180:16,22 111:9,23
paved (1) 78:5 136:16 pm (15) 106:12,24 187:14 190:13 181:15 183:20 promise (1) 188:5
paving (6) 76:12,22 photos (9) 71:6 73:16 107:1 109:1,3 192:19 184:1,15 185:8 promised (1) 190:6
118:13 163:23 74:2 82:7 90:7 151:24 152:21,23 positive (3) 89:15 186:8,12 promote (1) 151:8
164:2 175:18 167:5,7,8 174:10 190:23 191:1,2,3,4 99:11 157:21 prices (6) 143:10,24 pronouncements (1)
pay (9) 17:11 39:25 phrase (3) 47:14,18 192:7 195:25 possession (3) 3:2 146:22 149:24 53:11
131:14 141:13 75:5 point (40) 18:3 29:13 4:19 6:7 150:3 183:24 proof (1) 132:24
157:12,16 167:19 physical (2) 105:5 41:2,14,21 42:22 possibilities (1) 58:5 pricing (1) 100:2 propensity (1) 89:2
167:24 169:15 156:10 44:14 45:13 46:16 possibility (2) 55:21 prime (2) 56:17 145:7 proper (3) 39:15 40:6

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

206

April 8, 2016 Day 35

153:3

properly (4) 34:17

44:7,18 80:9 properties (15) 21:25

23:23 37:13 52:5 53:24 54:4 58:19 63:10 94:17,20 95:3 143:6 152:4 171:15 185:24

property (83) 19:20 28:2,6,17 38:12,19 52:10,22 53:3 54:10,11,24,25 55:21,22 56:3,12 56:18,20,23 58:21 61:7,21 62:4,10,15 63:12,16,17 64:1 72:6,12 78:9,22,23 80:15 81:10 83:5,9 85:25 86:6,11 87:3 87:7 88:17,22,24 89:3,5,11,16 90:15 91:6,23 92:2,12,14 92:17 93:4,7 94:1 94:12,21 95:23 98:2 113:14 148:12 153:21 157:22 158:8 162:4 163:6 166:13 168:20 169:1,17,17,19,22 170:8,10 171:10 175:9

Property’ (1) 53:16 Proponents (1) 56:20 proportion (3) 19:7

34:7 35:22 propose (2) 187:17

193:7 proposed (6) 7:22

53:2 77:5 111:11 111:13 129:2

proposing (1) 53:6 proposition (4) 42:18

60:16,23 61:2 propositions (1) 37:2 prospective (2) 36:23

78:10

protect (1) 175:20 protection (1) 189:22 prove (1) 143:11 proved (1) 133:1 proves (1) 132:14 provide (4) 5:20 26:17

26:24 135:10 provided (6) 26:20

30:8 31:10 46:3,9 163:5

provisionally (1)

195:8

proximity (3) 166:25 167:11 179:2 prudently (1) 39:16 public (4) 18:10 53:4 139:16 141:1 publication (1) 53:8 publications (1) 53:1 published (1) 52:16 pull (3) 40:8 131:19

132:20 purchase (3) 149:20

150:15 157:11 purchased (2) 117:21

117:22 purchaser (7) 140:19

146:12 157:9,10,11 157:13 161:23

purchasing (1) 38:11 purdah (1) 187:11 pure (1) 124:13

purpose (8) 22:25 23:15 36:19 42:13 56:21 170:6 174:21 195:14

purposes (5) 38:6 50:16 82:4,17 84:2

pursue (1) 28:23 pursuit (1) 7:13 put (38) 1:22 4:8,14

5:1,14 6:23 7:7,12 13:10 14:22 32:21 49:5,8 73:25 76:17 80:18 81:5 84:21 84:22 86:18 89:20 90:6,12 96:5 121:23 127:19 128:10 132:17 139:20 154:21 156:5 159:14,14 164:20 165:4,7,10 183:13

put’ (1) 73:19 putting (7) 87:13,13

87:20 142:21 151:15 167:17 182:25

puzzled (1) 66:18

Q

Q2 (1) 178:2

Q3 (1) 146:13 qualifications (1)

13:16

qualifying (1) 172:12 quality (6) 76:22

136:24 144:17 145:6,11 163:23

quarter (2) 108:2 146:15

quay (4) 165:5,9,12 168:12

Queensland (1) 132:3 question (45) 4:12 6:4 6:15,18 7:13 15:6,7

15:11,21 16:8,19 17:22 19:22 27:7 29:15 43:15 45:12 45:13 47:9,10 51:3 51:25 53:24 54:7 65:16 80:19 85:8 91:14,16 105:17 112:21 142:6,8 143:21 147:10 154:19 160:21 164:19 169:11 175:5 187:1,5 190:2 193:12,13

questioning (3) 5:23

7:1 62:2 questions (18) 5:19

8:16 9:3 12:8,10 14:10,11,14 18:18 29:7,10 32:11 56:10 79:2 98:9 134:19 187:6,22

quick (1) 15:15 quicker (1) 152:2 quickly (4) 50:8 55:14

146:13 177:5 quiet (1) 5:13

quite (10) 6:20 14:12 54:5 64:21 97:8 105:13 106:15 107:20 153:22 195:17

quote (1) 39:3 quotes (1) 56:12

R

railroad (5) 72:21,24 73:18,20 82:21 railroads (5) 73:17,21 73:25 74:1,23

railway (4) 73:5,6,8,12 railways (3) 74:10,16
74:21 raining (1) 164:1

raise (2) 4:12 142:4 raised (3) 53:10 89:22

190:2 raising (1) 160:1

range (7) 48:1,5,5,16 97:6 180:21,22

ransom (1) 164:13 rare (1) 127:4

rate (17) 42:15 43:1 47:4,4 108:21 123:19 171:18 172:3 174:16 177:7 177:9,16 178:1,7 178:11 186:20 195:21

rates (4) 177:17,21,24 178:5

raw (2) 137:18,19 re-established (1)

102:6 re-examination (1)

7:21

reach (1) 149:24 reached (6) 104:2,10

104:13,20,23

105:25

read (23) 3:5 8:22 9:5 9:13 55:5,8,14 81:14,19 91:16 93:5 97:2 114:18 123:6 139:1 141:9 143:13 144:25 145:1 146:1 147:11 180:4 195:16

readable (1) 49:2 reader (1) 45:20 reading (2) 51:5

164:18

reads (3) 24:23 47:1 109:17

ready (3) 104:1 131:14 140:2

real (33) 15:9 20:1 21:6,7 41:23,25 48:2,3 54:23 55:21 56:18,23 72:5,11 97:22,24 100:13 103:5 121:8 138:4 143:23 145:16 146:12,18 148:6 150:25 155:17,19 156:14 168:9 179:24 181:2 183:8

realise (1) 134:17 realised (2) 36:17

94:23

realities (2) 97:15,22 really (57) 4:13 9:1 13:18 15:8,12,16

22:24 23:22 24:18 33:17 40:10 41:25 45:6,19 47:9,10 55:15 56:4,6 67:11 67:13 76:11 77:25 78:2 81:16,21 83:7 86:19 87:13 88:14 88:17 89:21 90:5 92:13 102:19 107:14,17 136:19

136:23 137:10 registered (6) 21:22 replace (4) 53:2 54:15 188:25 193:4
138:3 140:2 141:12 71:23 72:5,11,13 184:8 185:17 respectively (1) 11:21
141:25 143:6 72:17 replaced (1) 59:2 respondent’s (1)
147:10,20 160:20 Registry (3) 72:5,11 replacement (1) 184:5 53:14
162:22 164:18 72:14 report (125) 1:21 2:4 response (1) 130:13
168:16 172:18 regret (3) 6:22 7:1,2 2:6,20,25 3:16 6:6 rest (4) 19:9 143:14
189:15 191:6 regular (3) 127:9 6:12 7:15 8:1,3 154:18 159:12
193:10,15 194:11 175:15 176:12 10:3,6,17,22 13:15 restated (1) 102:6
reason (15) 4:24 9:1 regulation (1) 131:15 21:15,24 24:13 restricted (1) 95:7
48:7,19 61:1 78:13 regulatory (1) 139:8 26:3,4,17 31:21,25 result (5) 34:17 79:21
79:24 84:11 96:15 reinforce (1) 86:3 32:4,14,17 38:25 79:22 143:24
100:20 131:7 reiterate (1) 86:7 41:6 44:10,21 45:2 163:17
137:10 146:16 related (54) 21:25 45:17,21 46:19 results (4) 47:5 61:4
148:24 175:11 28:17 52:5,10,22 49:9 51:9,14,20,20 79:23 100:2
reasonable (3) 38:2 53:3,16,24 54:4,10 63:1 64:25 65:2 retainers (1) 108:7
157:8 190:24 56:2,12 58:19,21 66:3 67:4,17 68:10 retrieved (1) 3:8
reasonably (6) 53:24 61:7 62:4,10,15 69:17 70:15,17,22 return (2) 190:10,22
57:16 59:24 106:18 63:10,12,15 64:1 70:22 71:2,7,13,17 revenue (5) 94:13
121:6 164:10 78:9,22,23 80:14 72:18 73:1 74:22 116:11 123:13,17
reasons (9) 14:9,12 81:9 83:4,9 84:25 74:25 75:6,9,12,15 127:17
23:21 53:8 55:13 86:11 88:22 89:3,5 81:3,3 82:8 85:10 revenues (1) 131:4
55:18 80:21 96:2 89:11,16 91:5,23 85:15,19 86:9 89:6 reversion (6) 98:20
180:21 92:2,12,14,17 93:4 90:12 97:4,6,11,11 99:7 122:19 123:24
recalibrate (1) 16:16 93:7 148:12 158:8 101:1 104:5 109:6 124:8,11
receivable (1) 156:24 162:4 168:19,25 112:2,8,23 113:17 reversionary (5) 35:11
receivables (1) 155:10 169:5,16,21 171:9 113:18 114:1,2,3,4 99:13 122:21
reclaiming (1) 109:13 175:9 114:18,25 117:7 123:17,21
reclamation (1) 139:9 relates (1) 83:3 123:1,5 125:22 revert (1) 152:9
recognise (1) 18:11 relation (15) 10:18 126:3,13,15 128:1 review (2) 53:9 86:8
recognised (1) 57:12 17:5 18:2 29:17 128:10 129:17 reviewed (1) 53:23
recollect (1) 16:2 51:1,16 53:12 132:25 135:1,7 reviewing (1) 52:25
recommend (3) 34:14 85:17 98:12 116:21 137:13 139:20 revise (1) 136:21
50:5 107:16 140:6 151:14 143:3,5,5,7,8,18 RICS (6) 63:2,4,5,7,8
reconsider (1) 45:8 159:25 166:12 144:6,7 158:4 81:9
reconstruct (1) 118:13 168:15 161:11 162:25 right (131) 2:21 4:1,3
reconstruction (4) relatively (1) 97:7 167:6 171:21 6:3 8:10 11:18
73:5,13 117:11 released (1) 53:4 173:15,22,23 180:5 12:14,15 13:22,22
119:20 relevance (1) 146:6 188:3,4 14:5 15:19,23,23
reconvene (1) 106:21 relevant (16) 6:3 12:1 report’ (2) 25:1,2 17:1,19,23 22:9
record (2) 193:5,6 22:5 25:13,17 46:4 reporting (2) 22:20 24:13 26:23 27:8
records (1) 3:9 46:10 83:19 108:5 50:11 28:14 34:24 35:14
recovery (2) 146:14 116:19 139:4,18 reports (28) 9:22 35:25 38:20,23
147:4 150:16 176:22 10:25 11:3 12:20 40:1 41:7 43:4 48:7
red (3) 68:23,25 160:7 181:14,21 12:21,22 13:2,9 50:22,24 51:24
redevelopment (1) reliability (3) 48:21 17:12 21:5 24:3,24 52:13 54:14 57:24
78:11 49:12 97:20 26:3,8 32:15 39:2,2 58:15 59:4,8,12
reduce (1) 124:12 reliable (2) 48:23 49:6 50:24 51:7,7 61:16 66:10 69:11
reduction (2) 102:10 169:21 52:8 64:17,20 66:1 72:13 73:11 74:3
146:22 reliant (1) 103:7 79:17 93:13 166:10 75:20,21,22 80:5
refer (9) 5:10 12:23 relied (2) 2:16,18 represent (3) 10:25 81:1 82:2,2 87:8
19:15 50:25 72:18 relief (1) 190:8 11:25 37:16 88:6 90:17 92:13
109:6 112:3 113:4 reloaded (1) 162:8 represents (2) 34:7 93:22,24 95:10
114:5 reloading (3) 73:22 53:16 98:8,14 100:12
reference (15) 12:22 163:15 164:25 reprogramme (1) 16:7 104:9 106:22,25
13:5 24:14 29:25 rely (2) 77:7 193:25 reputable (2) 103:21 107:3,24 111:14,16
32:16,22 38:25 relying (2) 176:6 104:4 118:1,10 119:16
47:11 51:8 56:9 178:17 require (5) 28:8,19 122:4,7,15 124:17
70:18,23 75:7 remain (1) 59:6 50:6 90:19 117:12 125:2 126:11
177:12 184:22 remaining (2) 152:2 required (10) 45:23 132:14 133:1,2,12
references (1) 32:20 170:9 49:23 51:21 53:20 133:13,15 138:10
referred (8) 11:1 remains (2) 54:16 57:4 63:20 90:16 138:10 139:13
46:23 51:19 57:20 195:20 120:25 134:3 137:4 142:7 147:22 148:1
62:6 72:9 97:4 remember (4) 51:24 requirement (3) 49:24 148:23 149:1,9,15
178:18 91:22,24 171:21 50:14,18 149:15 153:8,18
referring (1) 112:4 remind (3) 55:15 requirements (5) 39:9 155:23 157:25
refers (3) 3:16 6:14 120:16 147:9 44:6 49:8 101:12 158:1,17 159:14
146:10 remodelled (1) 156:7 160:6,9 161:11,25
reflect (5) 35:3 36:12 103:25 requires (7) 36:19 162:21 164:23
36:21 144:13 147:4 removes (1) 193:10 40:11 42:13 69:22 167:1 168:1 170:18
reflected (1) 57:6 remunerated (1) 17:6 93:16 100:8 137:9 170:19 171:9,19
reflects (1) 54:25 rent (2) 155:4 171:14 research (4) 37:24 172:4,19,19,21
reformulate (1) 12:11 rental (4) 172:4,8 103:13 177:18 174:2 178:11,15,18
refuse (3) 163:14 173:4 181:2 178:4 185:1 188:1 191:24
166:5,8 rentals (1) 171:1 reserve (1) 1:23 194:3,22 195:11,23
regard (4) 4:21 37:22 rented (1) 155:2 resident (1) 21:22 right-hand (1) 20:7
155:14 181:15 renting (2) 157:5 residential (1) 94:5 rights (3) 1:24 72:6,12
regarded (1) 53:19 176:3 resilient (1) 182:13 risk (5) 106:23 140:12
region (3) 173:9 179:1 repeat (3) 8:22 26:1 respect (7) 3:17 6:5 140:20 141:3
186:9 174:24 108:12,20 187:14 167:23

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

207
April 8, 2016 Day 35

risky (1) 144:18 165:1 24:22 26:21 27:10 sense (7) 8:4 51:6 shortly (1) 151:17 93:22 95:12 98:6 smaller (1) 68:23

ro-ro (6) 158:24 Sawyer (4) 70:15 27:19 28:12,13 85:11 87:4 96:17 shoulder (1) 102:3 98:14 100:12 101:7 Society (3) 10:14
159:18 162:7 164:4 71:19 74:22 78:8 29:24 30:1,3,4,7,12 98:1 174:8 show (14) 62:11,25 102:24 103:7 104:5 13:17 18:7
175:10,13 Sawyer’s (2) 71:7 30:13 31:4,7,8,11 sensible (1) 59:11 67:12 74:7,8 80:21 105:3,15 107:19 sold (6) 90:16,19
road (4) 100:9 158:25 180:4 33:2 34:3,8 35:6 sensitive (1) 96:21 85:17 91:21 112:7 109:5 111:14 94:21 132:2 137:7
175:15 176:1 saying (21) 35:20 36:5,6,7 38:18,22 sensitivity (33) 47:2 114:7,25 154:16 114:13,20 118:24 169:4
roads (1) 176:12 42:20 45:19 64:18 42:10 44:22 46:2,4 47:11,13,14,18,22 174:10 183:5 119:6,16,25 120:13 solicitor (1) 193:6
Robin (2) 30:8,18 70:6 88:7 92:13,17 46:7,11,14,21 47:1 48:6,8,10,20 49:3,8 showed (3) 91:20,21 123:4 124:4 125:3 solvent (1) 126:20
robust (2) 86:2 125:6 93:1 94:15 103:16 47:6,10,11 49:7 49:12,17,18,23,24 130:15 125:25 128:5,9,17 somebody (2) 169:23
robustness (1) 48:20 118:6 128:21 52:9,11,12,14 50:15,18,22,25 shown (49) 2:8 9:20 129:7,16 131:8 176:3
role (1) 7:23 132:19 138:6,7 54:20 55:3,10,17 51:8,11,16,23 52:2 10:4,16 12:25 18:9 133:2,10 135:18 soon (1) 15:6
roll-off (3) 167:21 147:2,16 162:21 55:18 56:6,8,11 97:1 102:9 116:15 21:23 24:2 26:12 136:14,19 138:2,23 sorry (71) 5:3,19
169:2 171:11 173:3 174:22 57:2,8,10,22,23 116:20 120:23 29:22 36:4 39:1 139:13 140:4 12:18,19 13:25,25
roll-on (4) 167:21 says (53) 19:14 22:19 58:11 59:1,10,16 124:22 131:18 52:6,7 62:3,24 142:13 143:18,22 16:25 18:19,19
169:2 171:10 26:13,16 27:25 60:8 61:22,23 62:4 sent (1) 1:7 68:20 69:11 70:25 144:8 145:7,23 24:9 25:13,13 27:7
176:12 33:8 34:3 36:9 62:7,9,17,21 63:2,9 sentence (15) 13:18 74:4,5 75:6 77:1 147:20 148:19 38:8 40:10 44:12
room (5) 25:3 30:1,19 37:20 42:12 44:1,5 63:11,14,21 65:25 34:12,20,21 35:20 79:16 85:14 89:18 149:14,19 151:5 45:5 47:9 50:2,7
31:14,25 45:11 52:15 54:22 66:9,17 67:2,5 36:1 44:15 45:11 93:12 95:11 99:19 152:16,24 156:8 51:6 56:8 63:6,9
rooms (1) 175:18 55:25 56:14 57:11 68:13,14 69:3,7,9 61:19 70:5,7 117:9 101:1 103:6 109:8 158:2,7 159:20 64:11,18,24 65:1,6
Roslyakovskiy (1) 59:16 60:5 61:5 69:24 70:9,16,18 137:16,17 140:3 114:16 117:6 119:4 160:6,15 161:11,15 66:17 70:1,21,22
73:19 63:10,11,24 77:8 71:3,5,6,20,23 72:1 sentiment (2) 36:22 125:13,21 127:25 163:10,16 164:12 70:24 71:10,11,14
Rosmorport (3) 139:4 85:17,23 87:10 72:25 73:4,9,16 146:12 137:12 138:20 166:11 167:1,17 76:1,3 82:25 91:3
139:6,10 90:13 96:25 101:5 75:8,11 77:6,7,12 separate (2) 153:9 142:11 143:3 144:6 168:8,15,23 169:7 104:21 105:11
roughly (4) 19:1,7 109:10,23,24 110:2 77:19 79:7 80:3 154:21 149:19 152:24 170:17 171:19 107:3 108:19 124:3
35:15 50:20 114:21 120:2 81:7,11 82:8 85:22 separately (1) 170:12 160:7 166:9 170:2 172:17 173:24 125:7,18 128:14
routes (1) 100:3 127:10,11 128:17 86:12 89:23 90:4,7 September (8) 52:8 178:21 174:21 176:3 130:12,24 131:8
row (1) 94:10 128:23 130:9 136:4 90:8 92:3 93:13,18 64:25 74:17 86:10 shows (4) 75:23 89:24 177:10 179:3,22 132:18 134:13,17
Royal (1) 63:3 144:11,22 146:9,10 95:16,17,18,19,23 147:5 149:11,17 162:16 176:20 180:25 181:9 134:25 136:1
RPC (1) 1:11 146:24 149:12 96:4,24 97:2,7,9 153:17 shrink (1) 129:15 182:12,24 184:14 143:16 161:1 166:1
RUB (3) 148:18 166:15 170:4,5 100:16 101:5,8,8 sequential (1) 14:20 side (4) 20:7 74:14 184:25 185:20 176:25 182:7
149:13 150:8 183:21 102:12,16,24,25 serious (6) 23:4 75:18 129:12 160:13 186:18 187:13 183:12,14 184:19
rule (5) 3:13 7:5 scale (1) 162:21 103:13,22 105:10 75:19 101:13 141:7 signature (4) 9:25 189:8,15 190:21 185:19 187:21
132:12 145:18 Scandinavia (2) 28:5 108:10,19,21 172:15 10:1,9,22 191:5,13,21 192:6 192:9 193:1 194:4
188:16 28:10 109:15,23 110:6,14 served (2) 2:20 6:22 signatures (1) 11:21 192:10 197:4 195:4
rules (1) 188:10 schematic (1) 67:22 110:16,20 111:1,6 services (1) 100:5 significant (7) 1:13 Simonova’s (4) 8:3 sort (11) 6:10 8:1
ruling (1) 189:21 schematics (1) 77:23 111:12 112:5,7,11 set (28) 13:15 21:24 92:22 100:7 101:18 13:2 86:5,8 28:24 38:19,19
run (5) 74:9 77:11 scheme (2) 161:10 112:15,16 114:17 24:5 27:23 39:2,9 121:17 138:17 simplify (1) 45:15 82:18 134:1 156:11
87:8 163:19 169:8 162:16 115:19,21 117:13 41:6 45:17 55:19 139:15 simply (13) 4:16 5:21 163:19 171:3,14
running (2) 90:21 schemes (2) 162:11 118:18 119:7,12,25 57:10 68:11,13,14 significantly (5) 137:7 8:1 15:4 88:3,5 sorted (1) 1:11
164:14 162:13 120:1,2,9,12 68:16 69:2 73:1 137:7 143:24 149:6 89:10 94:17 108:6 sorts (2) 157:21
runs (1) 31:7 scope (1) 28:8 124:22 125:23,24 98:15 99:19 100:2 166:6 188:7 190:4 193:3 181:19
runway (1) 89:10 screen (14) 9:5 11:15 126:1 127:10 128:3 104:17 105:20 similar (4) 79:23 193:7 sounds (1) 195:9
Russia (21) 21:18,19 11:16 20:6 30:25 128:5,17,19,21 123:5 152:25 80:10 83:15 95:3 single (1) 190:14 sources (3) 58:25
21:20,21,22 22:7 65:25 70:19 134:20 129:9,10,16,20,22 156:18 158:5 similarities (1) 137:8 sinister (1) 3:10 103:21 104:4
22:12 23:20,21 135:9 136:17 129:23 130:9 176:14 185:3 Simonova (229) 1:6 sit (2) 7:21 9:11 Southampton (1)
85:13,13 100:17,18 159:23 160:3,12 131:23,25 132:6,7 193:17 1:12,22 2:9 3:20,25 site (35) 3:15 67:1,7 88:13
100:23 127:2 171:22 132:9,10 135:14,19 sets (14) 33:20,25 4:2 5:23 7:18,20,20 76:9 81:25 82:3,18 Soviet (2) 100:20
128:12,13 131:2 scroll (5) 9:24 10:8,21 135:21,23 136:14 38:4 53:13 95:21 8:12,14,15,18 9:20 84:1,3 87:8 90:1,4 126:20
144:9,13,16 11:20 74:9 137:2,10,21 138:23 96:1 110:9 111:8 10:9 11:16 12:8,12 92:23 105:5 109:14 space (15) 76:21 82:6
Russian (41) 8:22,23 sea (18) 81:23 88:16 139:1,11 143:9,13 123:3 126:12 12:19 13:11,14,25 111:13 112:18,19 82:6,20 109:19
13:20 14:4,11,24 119:13 158:19 144:9,20 145:23,24 145:21 148:14 14:8 16:25 17:23 113:8 114:13 119:17 120:4
14:25 15:7,9,14,17 160:8 164:12,15 146:9,19,21,23 177:6 178:22 17:24 18:10,13,19 115:10,14 136:20 162:10 163:23
15:18,20 16:21 165:5,22 166:20 147:2 149:12,22 setting (2) 26:17 44:2 19:19 22:18,22 136:21,24 153:13 164:8 170:10
21:3,4 22:7 23:23 167:22 168:9 150:8 154:1,23 settled (1) 59:2 23:25 24:3,15,21 155:17 160:23 172:23 179:8,9
72:5,11,14 73:17 174:13 175:12,24 158:10,11,15 159:4 seven (1) 167:8 25:4,25 26:23 161:8 164:12,14,20 181:6
73:24 76:1 84:14 176:5,6,9 160:2,10,15 161:7 Shafirivskiy (1) 186:4 28:14 29:7 30:2 164:22 166:16,22 spaces (3) 76:20
100:25 114:10 seal (2) 10:11,11 161:8 162:15 shape (1) 77:21 31:2,4 32:11 33:1 sits (1) 163:13 126:21 175:23
125:15 139:4,16,18 seashore (1) 166:25 165:16 167:4,7 share (3) 101:20 34:3,19,23 35:20 situation (8) 1:15 speak (2) 7:23 65:21
139:22,24 140:6,10 second (28) 6:2,3 170:4,15 171:12 128:24,25 37:3 38:3,23 39:18 94:14,15 95:4 99:6 speakers (1) 14:15
141:13,24 144:4 14:15 27:25 55:9 174:12 175:24 shares (8) 130:1,16 40:3,10 41:2,20 125:14 148:3 speaking (2) 34:14
145:10 146:12 70:2,5 72:20 73:7 177:8,10,11,12,19 131:12,12,13,14,14 42:7 43:4 44:4,11 157:10 35:16
194:5 99:3 103:11,23 178:23 182:8 155:11 45:6,25 47:9 48:7 six (1) 31:7 special (7) 43:9,11
104:2 112:3,24 183:21,22 185:3,5 sheet (3) 155:9,9 48:19 49:10 50:7 sixth (1) 95:24 139:21 164:2
S 118:20,21 120:2 185:6,12,20,25,25 156:23 52:1,9,17 53:22 size (4) 85:3 105:5 175:17,18,18
safely (1) 191:21 128:1,22 130:10 186:2 188:12 shifted (1) 20:6 54:3,14 55:8,18 115:20 118:8 specialise (1) 63:16
131:6 143:23 191:15 192:17 shifting (1) 146:6 56:8,10,11 57:3,24 skills (1) 13:20 specialist (2) 60:14
safer (1) 188:17
144:11 146:15 195:24 shifts (2) 159:10,11 59:5 60:17 61:17 skinny (2) 68:4,6 159:16
sale (5) 94:2,22,23
173:23 182:1 seeing (1) 91:24 shipment (2) 167:21 62:3,17 63:2 64:3 slight (1) 14:24 specialists (1) 113:21
127:16 181:2
183:18 seeks (1) 53:15 172:24 65:17,25 66:9,18 slightly (5) 16:7,16 specific (6) 36:16
sales (9) 40:12 95:3
Secondly (2) 1:17 seen (14) 1:7 3:5 5:16 shipped (1) 169:3 67:19,24 68:21 64:11 182:17 42:24 43:1 54:24
95:13 96:14 98:3
130:23 5:17 67:14 75:13 ships (2) 136:11,12 69:11 70:6,25 71:3 189:14 60:15 169:18
125:7,8 127:7
section (1) 22:16 78:3 113:19 139:21 short (12) 3:12 34:4,5 71:11 73:11 74:7 slot (1) 195:6 specified (1) 36:22
183:1
secure (3) 140:10,19 141:6 150:13,14 64:9 65:14 119:17 74:16 75:4,8,13 slow (1) 146:14 speed (4) 24:20
sanction (1) 2:17
140:25 153:15 154:10 144:5 151:2 152:22 76:8 77:1,6 78:18 slowing (1) 16:11 120:11,18 151:13
satisfied (1) 9:15
security (1) 175:22 seized (1) 22:8 155:10 159:8 79:17 80:5,13 81:7 slowly (1) 106:18 spend (5) 19:21,23,24
save (2) 83:14 108:15
see (271) 7:11,14 selection (1) 173:25 162:18 81:19 85:21,25 small (11) 47:24 65:16 155:5 183:6
saw (9) 25:9 26:6 74:1
10:11 11:15,16,21 sell (1) 169:25 shortened (1) 20:1 86:3,20 87:20 88:7 67:2,10 97:7 spent (2) 19:6 133:4
77:21 135:21
13:8 16:13,16 20:7 seller (2) 39:14,25 shorter (3) 35:21 69:1 88:10,19 89:20 100:18,19 119:14 spinning (1) 187:7
141:14,23 164:25
20:9 22:1,4,16 24:6 senior (1) 13:16 120:14 91:1,4 92:4,10 129:14 131:5 148:8 split (3) 110:13 156:8

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

208
April 8, 2016 Day 35

170:11 Steadman (8) 28:23 80:13,22 86:19 105:12,23 106:1,3 76:23 77:4,10,14 95:4 152:6,13 154:9

spur (1) 73:5 29:16 66:2 86:3 130:6 142:23 109:5 113:12,17 77:16 78:1,5,6,15 terrible (1) 164:1 156:17 158:5
square (5) 69:6,7 97:6 112:8,24 149:14 153:12,20 117:22 118:16,18 78:19,21 79:11 test (4) 48:9 49:18 162:22 165:3,4,17
126:6 178:25 186:8 130:19 161:15 162:2 125:6 131:10 80:9,14,23 81:4,4 98:4 120:24 167:17 169:7,23
St (63) 21:6,8,9,14,16 Steadman’s (5) 97:4,5 167:18 168:8,15,23 132:16 133:6,15,16 81:21 82:10,10,11 testimony (1) 17:8 171:19 173:10
38:17 66:11 77:22 97:11 112:7 113:17 170:17 146:8 151:17 164:7 82:21 83:3,5,9,11 TEU (4) 100:18,24 174:17,19 178:10
77:22 84:13,14,17 steer (1) 190:22 suggested (5) 117:14 167:23 172:13 83:13,17,19,23,25 111:23 112:12 179:6,23 183:23
85:2 88:20 89:19 step (2) 67:19 104:19 162:22 165:7 173:1 181:24 182:4 84:7,9,20 85:7,12 TEUs (13) 100:16 186:10,25 187:1,12
89:24 96:17 100:6 steps (1) 3:3 188:19 190:23 182:18 187:19 85:16,18,20 86:1,6 103:4 104:7,16 188:9,9,23,24
101:5,10,11,16,22 stimulate (2) 36:1 suggesting (15) 44:15 192:5,20 86:9,11 87:3,6 112:10 113:7,16 189:14,16 190:7,14
109:12 114:23 141:16 44:17 84:1 87:24 taken (35) 1:20 2:2,3 88:10,12,12,15 114:21 115:16 190:19,24 191:17
115:8,20,25 118:25 stood (1) 176:4 90:19 115:13,23 2:11,24 3:3,7 4:10 90:1,15,18,21 91:5 116:12,18 118:7 192:4,7,15 193:10
119:7 126:5 127:4 stop (2) 145:19 121:1 132:15,16 4:21 6:1,5 31:2 92:11,12,21,25 129:9 195:8
127:8 131:6 139:7 164:15 176:19 178:10,14 32:19 71:1 74:6 93:3,8,10,16 95:14 TEUs’ (1) 110:5 thinking (1) 108:8
139:23 141:8,10,11 stopping (1) 145:15 187:22 188:14 75:2 81:2 82:9 96:3,7,14,21 97:13 text (1) 102:21 thinks (4) 59:5 149:12
142:12,14 144:19 storage (16) 69:13,22 suggestion (1) 26:2 85:25 96:13,21 97:17,21 98:16 textbook (1) 124:20 188:16,21
146:7 164:1 166:20 70:9 82:16,19 84:4 sum (2) 122:9 123:20 124:10 128:3 99:2,11,13,22 textbooks (1) 58:23 third (37) 8:25 10:17
166:24 171:16,18 109:19 119:24 summarised (1) 146:22 147:3 173:4 100:14 101:3,4,17 thank (30) 1:16 8:11 14:13 40:18 42:8
172:1,5 173:9 120:3,15 158:14 110:12 173:13 176:15,16 101:18,24,25 102:2 9:18 11:6 12:6 71:21 72:19 81:16
176:22 177:22 161:14 172:13,23 Summary (1) 111:11 177:9 180:7,25 103:4,24 104:6,15 13:13 16:24 24:21 81:17 96:24 104:8
178:7 179:1 180:3 175:23 176:8 supplemental (2) 10:5 181:2,11,18 105:4,18 108:12,12 32:7,10 52:21 104:17,19,22,23
183:23 184:2,6,16 storages (5) 171:18 79:17 takes (2) 96:2 193:7 109:18 110:3 55:10 65:12,24 105:2,19 106:3,4
185:9 186:9,13 174:16 175:9 177:3 supplementary (1) talk (5) 113:9 140:14 111:20 112:5,9,13 66:5 83:6,22 89:17 110:22 114:17
stabilised (1) 34:13 178:8 86:9 188:20 189:2 112:14 114:4,22 91:18 106:4 108:25 117:17,20 118:1,2
stable (1) 36:2 store (1) 81:22 supply (2) 56:24 192:10 115:4,14,24 116:21 131:22 132:25 121:15,21,23 122:5
stacking (1) 112:12 stored (2) 82:9 120:6 64:21 talked (1) 195:7 117:7,11,12 119:8 138:22 143:20 127:10 131:9,17
stage (12) 73:7,7 storing (3) 113:15 supplying (1) 138:12 talking (18) 74:10 119:10,10,12,13,13 160:14 165:11 135:19 158:12
90:22 104:8,17 175:19 176:24 support (5) 36:17 78:10 101:2,12,14 119:16,21 120:25 186:21 193:3 163:7 166:19 186:3
105:19 110:22 straight (1) 164:5 95:22 113:25 108:24 113:20 121:9,18,20 123:8 195:22 Thomas (6) 7:19,20
111:5,5,5 117:20 straighten (1) 118:5 120:14 141:7 114:2 142:9 146:5 123:10 124:17 theatres (1) 55:1 18:13,17,21 22:18
118:1 strange (1) 183:4 supporting (1) 127:14 146:18 155:7 157:2 125:5,14,22,24 theoretical (2) 103:5 thought (14) 4:13,23
stages (4) 83:21 streams (1) 16:23 suppose (1) 5:13 160:16 169:8 172:3 126:18,23 127:1,13 142:6 5:14 36:12 106:7,7
110:24 111:2 street (1) 159:2 sure (30) 4:5,5 5:2 9:2 179:4 183:7 127:23 128:1,8 theory (1) 92:7 107:23 108:6,23
151:16 stress (2) 143:7 13:22 14:2,4,12,16 tariffs (7) 99:20,23 129:3,19 130:7 thereabouts (1) 130:24 154:19
stand (2) 11:3 164:17 167:11 16:9 39:18 41:23 100:2,4,6 102:11 131:5,17,19 132:16 151:19 194:9,10,20
standalone (1) 166:13 strip (2) 155:18 45:12 61:17,25 102:12 133:22,23 136:2,9 thing (11) 5:14 6:10 three (29) 10:25 11:3
standard (7) 45:23 164:13 67:12,13 69:15 task (1) 156:2 136:15,20,23,24 16:18 38:19 121:19 13:9 19:8,8,9 22:19
50:4 53:2 59:3,14 Stroilov (43) 1:5,10,17 87:13 95:1 105:13 tax (1) 130:3 137:13,15,23,24 125:2 130:25 131:9 40:17,19 41:10
62:5 156:6 2:3,10 5:17,21 7:6 125:1,5 134:14 taxes (1) 137:18 138:4,10,11,15,16 132:14 133:1 61:3 73:17,18 81:7
standards (20) 21:11 7:17 8:3,10,12,14 135:2 149:10 164:9 tea (1) 65:18 139:14,14 140:7,9 189:13 81:16 86:14 103:2
23:7,11 28:19 33:4 9:19,20 11:6,12,14 169:25 191:25 technical (5) 33:15 140:12,24 141:5,20 things (16) 8:2 16:4 109:9,21 110:1,13
37:23 39:5,10 12:6 13:4 17:2 195:4 50:3,5 97:13,17 141:21 142:5,18,18 30:20 81:22 91:9 110:21,24 111:2,20
50:11,14 52:24 20:23 65:16 66:7 surely (1) 181:20 Technically (1) 104:13 143:4,8 146:21 130:19,19 131:5 111:25 117:14
53:1,5 58:22,24 107:7 151:5,8 Surveyors (1) 63:3 technique (1) 36:14 148:15,17 149:2,5 151:20 156:21,24 151:18 166:14
90:23 150:23 188:18 189:6,8,11 survive (1) 145:20 techniques (2) 95:5,8 149:6,16,21 150:7 164:17 175:6 176:4 throughput (9) 102:23
155:25 180:11,15 190:17,23 191:5 suspect (1) 165:9 tell (25) 3:25 20:15 150:11,16,18 190:19,20 114:21 115:15,23
standing (1) 109:19 192:2,14,23 193:10 sustained (1) 134:4 29:13 31:15 47:17 151:15 152:3 153:1 think (163) 1:10,17,22 116:16,17 117:2
stands (1) 52:18 194:2,7,9,21 197:5 SV-16 (1) 73:8 47:20,21 66:25 153:16,17,22,25 3:24 4:2,2 6:12,13 129:4,9
start (6) 1:18 2:15 Stroilov’s (1) 32:16 swank (1) 108:4 68:2 73:15 74:22 154:7,21 155:17 8:21 11:21 14:3 thumb (2) 132:12
107:14 191:3,20,24 strong (1) 168:10 switch (1) 76:23 84:24 106:1 114:7 156:3 158:3,6,7,11 15:3,12 16:20,23 145:18
started (5) 95:24 99:3 structural (1) 60:24 switched (2) 50:8 124:18 126:20 158:13,18,23 159:3 17:19 20:8 21:5 Thursday (3) 192:16
100:22 118:20 structure (2) 71:23 101:10 146:1 148:4 149:8 159:5,18,21 160:7 22:22 23:6,6,13 194:6 195:6
144:3 72:4 switching (1) 100:24 154:17 163:24 160:15,22 161:4,7 25:17,19,19,20,23 timber (6) 92:25 93:9
starting (4) 117:14 studied (6) 21:13 sworn (1) 8:14 169:5 183:6 189:17 161:13,16,20,24 29:8,11 33:11 93:9 137:16,18,19
137:18 149:24 31:21 37:9,14 synergistic (1) 153:5 192:6 162:10,16,18 163:1 35:20 39:4 44:24 time (50) 2:3,4,20
191:19 99:23 183:6 synonymous (1) 79:9 telling (1) 167:14 163:17,20,20 164:4 45:19 50:7,7,10,12 7:11,14 9:14 15:6,9
starts (2) 32:22 study (4) 26:7 31:19 tells (2) 132:21 189:6 164:6,11,14,16,20 58:8,15 59:5,7 64:5 19:6,9,21,24 21:21
138:24 58:23 142:8 T temporarily (1) 72:8 164:22 165:20 64:14,15 65:8 66:2 24:14,16,17 29:4
state (10) 80:20 92:18 stuff (3) 83:18 106:16 table (18) 69:2 98:14 temporary (3) 71:22 166:1,12 167:2,5,6 66:8,18 67:1,8,9,19 36:18 38:10 49:14
93:4 121:1 138:15 193:14 72:4 75:17 167:9,20 168:4,16 68:4 70:6,16 71:11 62:1 74:1 83:14
98:15 100:15
140:3 153:10,12,24 subject (5) 14:21 22:9 ten (4) 2:24 65:12 168:17,24 169:4,9 71:15,16 74:5 100:20 105:10
102:18,20,21,22
180:15 38:2 166:16 185:24 120:14 152:20 169:13,24 170:4,18 75:14,14 76:1,24 106:9 113:15
112:11 122:18
stated (3) 180:5 184:9 submission (5) 2:5 tentatively (1) 57:20 171:11,12,23 77:7 79:6 82:23 120:18 135:18
123:11 146:10,11
185:13 151:12 191:16,20 term (3) 137:20 155:8 172:12,20 174:19 83:1,16,20 86:23 143:23 144:5
172:2 173:19
statement (9) 11:7,17 193:23 155:10 175:12,13,21 87:16,16 89:12,19 145:14 150:13
176:20 177:15
11:25 12:3 44:11 submitted (1) 23:3 terminal (328) 1:19 176:16 177:8 91:20,21 92:3,10 151:4 152:9,15
185:11
80:16 97:10 112:2 substantive (1) 15:4 3:20 5:10 10:19 178:23 179:5,25 98:13 101:3 104:3 154:4 159:8,12
tail (1) 195:18
163:9 subtract (8) 76:15 21:24 27:14,24 180:7,9,16,17 104:10,20,22,23,25 164:1 182:8 183:7
take (64) 7:11 13:9
statements (4) 23:9 118:19 123:14 28:2,4,6,7,10,15,17 181:1,9,12,16,17 105:2,6,8,24 106:5 189:25 190:25
15:15,16 16:7 17:4
39:22 49:21 50:17 133:5,7,9,19,25 29:18,19 30:11 181:24 185:14,16 106:11,15,23,25 191:14,22 192:1,14
21:2,12 23:6 24:14
states (2) 97:6 129:8 sufficient (10) 37:23 34:6 35:3,22 37:8,8 terminals (11) 84:10 108:3,7,20,22 193:5 194:24
24:16 32:24 34:24
stating (2) 141:15 40:24 41:1 92:8,24 46:12,18 66:13,15 84:23,25 96:19 112:1 115:5,12 times (6) 129:2,4
36:8 37:17 38:3
153:25 148:13 179:20 66:22,23 67:1,7,13 100:1,7 101:15 116:25 126:14 145:10 159:10
40:4 41:2,12 43:10
station (2) 118:14,15 180:24 183:11 67:15,24 68:2,8,8,9 113:22 125:17 127:9 128:7 129:7 168:20 175:2
53:22 56:5 65:4
stations (1) 55:2 184:5 68:12,17 69:18 127:7 175:10 130:5 133:10,11 timetable (2) 16:1
67:11 70:14 78:16
status (2) 54:5 59:11 sufficiently (3) 8:19 70:14 71:20 72:19 terms (5) 27:8 118:7,9 134:6,21 138:17 191:11
82:7 83:21 85:1,2
stay (3) 11:6 113:14 144:4 194:19 72:21 73:3,12,18 167:18 168:11 141:22,23 143:22 timetabling (3) 15:1
86:17 88:7 92:21
122:18 suggest (20) 2:6 34:23 73:20,21 74:25 terrace (1) 94:17 148:3,19 149:4 194:5,12
98:18 104:1,19
staying (1) 159:9 52:1 76:9 78:19 75:3,6,10 76:3,5,20 terraced (3) 94:11,24 150:3 151:13 152:4 timing (1) 14:6

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

209

April 8, 2016 Day 35

tired (1) 182:14 90:10 100:17 8:3,20,24 9:1,12
title (1) 163:5 treated (1) 86:21 10:12 14:12,15
today (8) 10:24 87:1 trends (2) 145:22 15:12 18:24 19:23
106:13,24 134:24 146:5 25:8 33:18 41:14
148:7 151:19 189:7 trial (1) 28:11 44:7,19 45:13
told (11) 2:3 65:2 tried (4) 16:3 106:17 47:17,19,20,23,24
88:20 105:12 129:18 132:8 65:20 76:16,24
124:13 130:16 Trout (1) 195:15 78:7,17 83:12
156:23 174:4 176:9 TRP (25) 53:10,21 91:11,13,19 107:7
189:8,9 54:23 55:2 56:19 108:23 118:6 123:7
top (17) 24:22 26:1 57:14 58:1 60:3,9 127:2 131:15 135:6
75:20,21 79:18 60:16 61:10,21 142:9,25 143:3
102:19,21 111:9 79:3,4 81:6 85:17 144:13 146:6
125:23 129:21 86:21 87:4,6,15,18 147:20 154:24
131:25 132:1,1 87:22 88:1,3 92:5 155:14 164:18
134:8 166:13 170:5 TRPs (8) 54:8,16 59:7 167:10 178:9
193:23 59:22 60:14,18,19 181:19 183:15
topic (1) 195:13 87:14 192:23
total (11) 98:25 true (18) 10:25 11:25 understandably (1)
102:16,22,24 103:1 12:16,17 17:18,20 83:20
103:3 104:2,3 22:13 43:16 58:7 understanding (6)
114:22 115:11 130:25 145:12,15 3:20 14:8,17 63:19
119:20 146:8 153:14 162:1 157:6 176:10
totally (2) 194:9,16 162:9 167:4 181:13 understood (8) 5:9
townhouse (1) 19:5 truth (1) 26:7 9:9 14:1 36:14 95:1
track (1) 73:5 try (7) 12:8,10 128:18 95:9 107:5 192:25
trade (70) 21:25 28:17 151:17,20 174:22 undertake (2) 53:9
52:5,10,22 53:3,16 183:16 139:2
53:24 54:4,10,11 trying (16) 19:25 undertaken (4) 36:18
56:2,12 58:19,21 24:20 39:24 41:5 37:24 104:18
59:25 61:7 62:4,10 65:8 83:14 91:9 105:21
62:15 63:10,12,15 125:10 130:13 undertaking (1) 39:23
64:1 78:9,22,23 132:18 151:23 undervaluing (1)
80:14 81:9 83:4,9 175:22 179:13 149:4
84:10,10,11,25 182:1 183:7 190:4 undesirable (1)
85:7,7,8 86:10 87:3 Turetsky (1) 152:13 107:11
87:10 88:17,22 turn (3) 68:12 73:2 undeveloped (2)
89:3,5,11,16 91:5 139:14 153:9,12
91:23 92:2,12,13 turning (1) 120:19 uneasy-making (1) 4:6
92:17 93:4,7 turnover (10) 103:14 unfair (1) 6:21
100:19,25 101:9 103:23 104:3 112:9 unfeasible (1) 84:11
117:11 148:12 112:13 115:7,9 unfold (1) 14:3
157:22 158:8 162:3 116:11,12 119:18 Union (2) 100:20
168:19,25 169:6,16 turns (2) 2:13 14:19 126:20
169:21 171:9 175:9 twice (1) 159:7 unique (7) 53:17
trading (5) 54:25 two (43) 5:19 14:9,12 56:25 84:19 85:2,4
59:23 63:24 84:19 15:10 16:22 19:8,8 88:21 125:15
84:23 19:9 31:13 35:1,5 units (1) 111:24
transaction (3) 39:15 40:22 58:4,5 73:21 unload (5) 159:8,13
40:5 181:12 80:9 85:22 99:1,5 159:15 165:22
transactional (1) 102:22 103:24 166:2
180:25 104:24,24,25 109:7 unloaded (1) 82:9
transactions (7) 63:19 109:18 117:12 unloading (6) 81:24
98:3,5 125:7,8 118:8 128:4 132:11 119:18 163:8
179:24 181:4 132:22,22 133:12 164:16,21 165:25
transcript (3) 1:12 145:4 148:15 unnatural (2) 182:16
105:11,15 151:18 154:15,15 182:17
transformation (1) 159:10,10,11 163:2 unnecessary (2) 105:2
92:22 186:5 135:4
transformer (1) two-year (1) 35:2 unrelated (1) 166:19
118:15 type (6) 27:5,6 54:23 unreliable (2) 52:3
translate (1) 114:11 54:24 56:22 141:18 166:8
translated (1) 71:9 types (2) 56:20 142:1 unsustainable (1)
translation (8) 14:20 typical (1) 126:19 143:12
15:20 51:5 71:12 untoward (1) 3:10
71:16,16 75:9 93:5 U unusual (1) 18:8
translators (1) 15:14 Ukraine (3) 18:15,15 update (2) 53:2,6
Transport (1) 139:6 updated (2) 28:11
19:10
transportation (2) 52:23
Ukrainian (5) 13:21
100:4,9 upgrade (2) 110:20
18:7 20:2 22:6,11
transship (1) 105:1 136:6
ultimately (1) 36:16
transshipment (16) uploaded (3) 3:3,9
unacceptable (1)
38:17 69:23 70:9 6:23
179:11
93:8 102:14 111:9 upside (1) 166:24
uncertainty (4) 140:18
126:24 158:14 upstairs (1) 65:4
141:4,19 142:3
161:14 166:7 169:1 urgent (1) 192:18
unclear (1) 14:7
172:14 175:11 US$1.9 (1) 132:4
undergoing (1) 137:3
177:2 179:8 185:17 US$100 (2) 129:21
understand (53) 1:21
transshipping (2) 138:18

US$104 (1) 133:4 US$11.8 (1) 149:3 US$143 (1) 153:18 US$16 (1) 98:24 US$21.37 (1) 149:13

USA (3) 19:15,16 22:17

usable (1) 73:12 usage (1) 170:10

use (66) 36:10,11 37:7 40:24,25 41:21 45:3,5 58:1,24,24 59:9,13,14 60:15 69:12,13,22 70:8 71:14 77:23 79:10 80:6,7 82:5,13,14 82:17 84:3,4 90:25 91:6 92:4,7,9,20 93:2,2,10,16 95:8 121:4 122:17 126:22 133:14 137:23 138:3 148:11 149:9 159:18 161:4,24 164:4 165:24 169:18 175:23 178:9 180:2,5,16 180:18,18,19 181:5 181:6 182:1

useful (1) 138:9 user (1) 100:1 users (2) 44:7,18 uses (6) 127:18,21

137:14,24 138:14 147:14

Ust-Luga (11) 100:4,7 100:12 101:6,11,13 101:19,21,25 102:8 102:8

usual (2) 60:2 188:16 usually (12) 19:7

47:24 48:1,4,5 49:3 59:22 60:15 63:16 113:14 125:11 182:1

utility (1) 56:23 utterly (2) 85:10

115:6

V

valid (4) 40:23 59:9,14 65:11
valuation (120) 10:18 19:20 21:11 23:10 23:11 25:9,12,14 26:7 27:23 28:15 29:2,3 32:12 33:3 33:21 36:10,19 37:18,21,23 38:5 39:5,7,10,13,22 41:3,22 42:13,19 43:20 44:8,19 45:16,17 47:5 48:12 49:11 50:19 52:2,10,22 53:10 53:17,21 57:10,13 57:25 58:22 60:9 60:17 61:10 62:11 62:15 63:10,18 78:19 79:5,7,9,21 79:22 80:8,10 86:2 86:6,9,11,20 87:7 90:23 91:24 92:2 93:16 94:16 96:20 97:13,21 98:2,4 102:10 113:1,2 127:13 128:19 130:1,2,17,20,21

132:11,12,14 133:3 146:20 149:11 156:17,20,20 157:7 157:20 158:3 161:19 168:17,18 168:22 170:3,6,22 171:23 172:16,22 174:3,15 177:22 178:22 179:25 180:11 181:12

valuations (11) 29:17 37:8 44:7,18 49:16 58:8 59:22 63:15 144:12 148:15 181:1

value (194) 26:18,24 27:2,3,4,5,6,6,9,11 27:13 28:4,9 34:6,7 35:3,4,14,22,23 36:6,19 37:1,1,5,6 37:22 38:6,24 39:3 39:6,8,12,19,21,23 40:9,11,15,20 41:4 41:6,8 42:10,14 43:5,6,8,8,14,14,21 43:23,24 46:12,18 47:25 48:1,4,21 54:25 56:18 57:1 57:19 58:3 61:1,7,8 61:11,12,13,13,13 61:14,17,19 63:25 64:1,6,7 76:15 77:17 78:1,2,14 79:11 85:25 86:25 87:7 89:10 90:24 92:5 93:23 94:22 95:6 96:6 97:8,17 98:23 99:11,13 121:18 122:12,19 123:8,10 124:12,17 124:23 125:6 126:4 127:23,24 129:18 129:20 130:8 131:13 132:16 133:3,9,16,23 136:22 138:4 147:3 147:7 148:4,16,20 149:1,4,6,10,16 150:17,22,23 152:25 153:1,4,5,7 153:9,11,13,17,23 153:24,25 154:4,6 154:7,17,18,20,25 154:25 155:2,13,13 155:15,17,17,18,21 155:22 156:3,5,5 157:1,23,24 158:6 165:6 167:15,19 169:11,13,14,24 170:8,9,11 171:4 171:10,16 172:19 172:24 175:2 178:25 180:9,16 181:3 185:4

valued (19) 21:6,7 22:1 26:15 28:3 42:25 63:12 78:21 79:3 87:11,14,15 87:18 89:3 155:3 156:25 160:22 173:17 185:21

valuer (8) 37:17 39:23 40:12 41:5 44:16 44:25 45:16 79:8

valuers (2) 63:15 86:24

valuers’ (2) 54:4 57:6 values (7) 97:6 126:12 147:6,9 148:17

153:21 177:25 valuing (17) 52:3

55:21 60:3 61:17 61:18 67:20 78:21 91:7 94:17 95:14 95:22 96:3 125:4 125:24 168:24 170:18 177:7

various (6) 21:25 41:12 140:25 141:1 188:17 193:25

vendor/willing (1)

157:10 ventilated (1) 193:21 versa (2) 91:9,10 version (3) 33:12,13

35:7 versus (1) 27:3

vessels (2) 72:23 163:8

viable (1) 137:20 vice (2) 91:9,10 vicinity (1) 166:19 view (20) 5:23 6:1 23:7 56:15,20

60:18 68:16,19 86:20,24 87:9,25 87:25 94:12 133:15 138:17 152:17 166:21 171:9 188:18

viewed (2) 80:14 91:5 views (2) 53:14 86:3 virtue (2) 88:4,5

visit (1) 167:5 visiting (1) 21:21 vital (3) 163:18

166:17 167:2 volume (1) 13:2 volumes (1) 111:9 voluminous (1) 64:21 volunteering (1) 85:9

W

wagons (1) 72:24 wait (9) 14:21 15:13
16:8,21 91:13,13 91:13 181:5 191:7

waiting (2) 15:9 189:25

Wales (1) 175:3 want (60) 2:12 5:6,10

9:2 11:3,13 12:3 19:19,20,22 23:25 27:4 29:14 38:24 41:17 45:8 55:16 55:16 56:5 59:17 62:11 70:13,14 74:20 75:4 79:17 81:14 90:12 102:15 102:23 106:12 120:16 121:8,9 129:24 131:20 132:21 133:19 135:4 136:21 140:1 142:19 146:1,25 147:9 148:25 155:14 165:14,24 169:3,5 171:2 172:11 174:18 179:7 183:2 184:18 187:9 189:15 191:6

wanted (8) 1:14 13:18 134:15 136:19 143:6 145:6 154:24 191:13

wants (4) 1:22 3:13 126:23 187:3

warehouse (9) 126:5 126:12 171:15 172:10 174:1 177:18,22 178:5 181:3

warehouses (9)

166:13 171:1,25 172:8,23 173:9 176:3 177:8 178:2

warm (1) 65:18 warning (3) 4:25 188:12 189:5

Washington (4) 19:3,4

19:4 21:1 wasn’t (23) 27:15

33:17 34:22 47:9 52:12,13 54:2,6 55:20 67:15 73:13 88:14,16 100:21 105:13 111:20,25 138:17 182:2,4 183:9 187:15 189:11

wastes (1) 191:14 water (4) 9:12 65:18

116:7 164:3 way (40) 5:15 7:15

12:14 15:4 16:4,5 27:7 42:9,23 48:14 52:3 60:18 66:6 71:22 81:16 82:5 84:6 89:4 116:22 116:24 121:9,20 130:9 131:20 132:21 136:11,22 147:23 150:3 153:23 154:21 157:4 162:4,11 164:20 170:18 174:19 183:13,16 186:15

ways (1) 105:8 we’ve (3) 153:15

154:10 193:12 weapons (1) 175:19 weather (2) 163:24,25 week (8) 159:7,11

194:6,6,14 195:6,7 195:20

weekend (5) 190:10 193:15 195:12,16 195:23

weeks’ (1) 159:10 weight (1) 154:10 went (4) 55:1 79:10 139:4 141:25

weren’t (5) 2:22 25:7 26:4 134:14 172:5

western (175) 1:19 3:20 5:10 10:19 21:24 27:14,24 28:2,4,6,7,9,15,17 29:18,19 30:11 37:8 66:13,15,22 66:23 67:1,7,13,24 68:8,9,12 69:18 70:14 71:20 72:19 73:3,12 74:25 75:10 76:3,5 77:4 77:10,14,16 78:1 78:19,21 79:11 80:9,14,23 81:4,21 83:5,11,13,19,23 83:25 84:9,14 85:16,18,20 86:1,6 86:11 87:3,6 88:10 88:12,12 90:1,15 90:18 91:5 92:11 93:3,16 95:14 96:3

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

210

April 8, 2016 Day 35

96:7,14,21 97:13 97:17,21 98:16 99:11,22 100:14 101:4,17,24 102:2 103:4 104:6,15 105:4,17 108:12 109:11,25 111:20 112:5,9 114:4,22 115:4,14,24 116:21 117:7,11 119:8,12 119:13,16 120:25 121:18 125:5,14,22 125:24 126:18,23 127:13 128:1 129:3 129:19 130:7 136:15,20,23,24 137:13,15 138:4,15 139:14 140:7,9,12 140:24 141:5,20 142:5,18 143:4,8 146:21 148:15,17 149:2,5,16,21 150:7,11,16,18 151:15 152:3 153:1 153:16,17,22 154:21 155:17 179:5 180:7,9,16 181:16,17,24

wharf (2) 163:6,18 whereabouts (2) 19:1

19:2 whichever (1) 41:4 whilst (2) 127:14

193:5

willing (5) 39:14,14 157:10 167:19 169:14

wish (5) 7:11 16:20 187:11 188:11 193:9

wishes (1) 182:9 Withers (10) 17:14 20:11,12 24:5

27:18 31:5,10,22 108:6 193:3

Withers’ (1) 192:20 witness (32) 4:8,22

5:1,23 6:24 7:8,13 7:14 13:4,7,12 14:2 14:20 16:5 32:24 56:5 58:13 65:19 66:7 83:16 87:14 105:12 108:21 114:5 151:10,16 188:17,19 189:19 189:21,24 190:4

witness’s (1) 107:18 witnesses (3) 151:7 189:2 192:5

wonder (13) 11:10 18:9 24:1 42:5,7 43:25 52:6 70:18 74:4,24 75:6 109:5 136:15

wondering (2) 11:9 151:4

wood (1) 76:21 words (14) 8:24 22:11

33:12 41:24 48:23 58:3 61:20 97:22 140:24 142:21 145:6,14 169:1 172:21

work (20) 17:6,11,16 18:2 21:13,17 23:1 23:2,4 33:17 67:16 70:10,24 78:1 125:10 132:8 154:11,13 164:10

194:14

worked (5) 20:14,16 20:18 146:20 171:1

working (6) 18:6 49:5 60:1 67:18 108:4 168:5

works (3) 73:2,4 116:6

world (12) 20:5 28:25 41:25 84:24 85:3 88:22,23 96:18 112:10 125:9,20 131:1

worried (1) 24:17 worry (4) 24:19 66:25

88:11 186:23 worse (1) 41:18 worth (2) 61:21 64:2 wouldn’t (27) 43:19

58:5 69:14 81:20 81:24 84:6 94:22 122:10,14,15 132:25 133:4,14,18 140:13,18,20 141:19 150:15 158:19 167:4 168:10 176:6 182:4 188:11,15 191:6

writing (1) 195:13 written (2) 193:14

194:8

wrong (14) 3:22 34:20 78:20 86:23 93:5 148:6 174:17,20 178:13 186:12,14 186:15 188:9 194:10

wrongly (1) 80:22 wrote (1) 103:12

X

x (1) 122:4

Y

yard (1) 170:10 yards (1) 178:23 Yatvetsky (2) 192:17

194:16

year (44) 19:7,9 34:25 35:11 51:24 74:7,8 98:20,21 99:1,3,7 99:13 100:16 103:23,23,25 104:2 104:16,16 105:19 112:13 118:19,20 118:21 121:15,21 121:24 122:5,19,21 122:23 123:17,18 123:22,25 124:8,11 129:3,10 131:19 148:11 149:25 150:1

years (17) 22:19 34:16 34:16,25 35:1,2,5 35:12 98:19,20 99:1,5 117:12 124:7,8,25 167:8

yellow (3) 66:24 68:1 160:8

yellowy (1) 66:14 yesterday (4) 2:25 4:10 5:12 6:16

yield (4) 79:23 171:2 177:17 178:4

younger (1) 20:8

Z

Z (1) 48:15

Zapadny (1) 66:17 zero (1) 103:23 zoom (1) 74:14

0

0.155 (2) 124:2,3

0.69 (1) 121:24

0.6975 (1) 122:4

1

1 (8) 27:19 54:22 55:5 55:8 111:5 148:16 176:17 197:3

1-14 (1) 26:19

1.069 (1) 150:8

1.09 (1) 109:1

1.1 (3) 59:16 63:11,14

1.153147 (1) 183:22

1.2 (1) 120:5

1.25 (1) 129:9

1.3 (1) 150:6

1.45 (3) 106:21 107:14 109:3

1.5 (1) 115:10

10 (5) 10:1 34:3 105:15 110:8 120:7

10.30 (1) 107:9

100 (16) 111:6 121:16 121:21,23 122:4,16 129:23 132:22 133:24 136:7 147:15,16 175:20 179:10,14,17

104 (8) 121:4,6 130:5 133:16,19,20,21 142:19

105 (1) 44:6

11 (5) 22:19 64:25 102:18 114:14 196:2

11.27 (1) 65:13

11.41 (1) 65:15

11.85 (1) 148:17

12 (7) 52:19 54:15,16 58:12 59:6,15 197:6

12.00 (7) 191:1,2,3,4 191:20,25 192:7 12.5 (3) 178:8,10,14

120 (1) 69:6

13 (4) 36:8 37:16 41:20 42:1

130 (2) 132:11,17

13th (1) 195:20

14 (8) 24:25 25:1 37:20 38:4 41:20 42:1 74:9 128:16

14.5 (2) 177:21 178:2

143 (1) 122:13

149 (2) 132:12,24

15 (9) 34:16 68:21 69:1,7 114:22 115:8 119:14,19 153:2

15,000 (1) 112:14

15.5 (2) 123:19 124:2

150 (3) 100:9 102:3,7

16 (14) 68:21,23,25 69:6,12 99:8 119:14,21 122:10 153:9,13 177:10 178:3,15

17 (2) 110:19 119:9

18 (4) 42:12,19 86:10 110:18

186 (1) 197:7

19 (4) 26:19 42:22 98:14 123:11

2

2 (15) 24:12,13 55:5,8 85:20 110:4 111:5 135:2 137:15 150:6 170:11,14 176:17 185:11 186:3

2.00 (1) 190:23

2.4 (2) 95:20,23

2.5 (1) 123:2

2.6 (1) 128:3

20 (1) 124:25

200 (1) 175:21

2005 (2) 22:18 52:23

2006 (1) 74:6

2007 (15) 52:23 77:10 143:10 149:22,24 150:7,11,16,19 153:16 154:3,5 180:8 181:16,22

2008 (17) 28:11 30:11 75:7,9 77:4 102:13 110:14 117:15 120:17 143:10,23 146:13 148:4 150:4 159:25 180:4 181:23

2009 (24) 52:24 108:22 110:14 115:9 137:18 144:9 144:13,24 145:8 146:14 147:3,4 148:5,16,20 149:2 173:12,12,22 177:19 178:2 183:20 184:2,17

2010 (6) 53:4 110:14 110:22 111:10 132:2 146:15

2011 (4) 54:18 110:22 111:10 117:16
2012 (16) 70:15 71:2 73:12 120:18 142:15 146:20 147:5,7 148:7,11 149:11,17 150:20 153:17 154:8 181:23

2013 (2) 39:10,11

2014 (5) 3:17 24:25 25:1 74:12,17
2015 (18) 10:1 24:6 28:11 64:25 74:8 74:19 85:20 86:10 135:2 167:8 173:15 173:18,22 176:15 185:4,9,22 186:9

2016 (2) 1:1 196:2

21 (2) 44:14 160:11

210,000 (1) 116:17

22 (2) 24:6 194:15

220 (6) 110:25 111:3 111:16 121:2,5,14
232 (7) 53:7 54:22 55:13 57:12,21 62:4 91:23

2321 (1) 53:3

24 (7) 44:4,15 45:11 46:2,5,16,24
25 (2) 133:17 179:12

250,000 (1) 116:17

26 (1) 133:18

28 (2) 67:8,9

284 (2) 122:24 123:20

284.6 (1) 122:20

284.64 (1) 123:24

29 (1) 39:11

29.5 (1) 122:6

3

3 (6) 32:25 55:7,10 111:5 176:17 177:19

3.28 (1) 152:21

3.3 (2) 109:13 110:20

3.3.2 (1) 112:9

3.4 (1) 110:23

3.4.3 (1) 114:6 3.40 (1) 152:23

3.6 (2) 100:18,24

30 (10) 66:14,15,24 67:10,25 90:2 100:5 101:21 109:22 146:22

30,000 (1) 112:14

35,000 (1) 112:13

367 (1) 148:18

37 (1) 115:15

4

4 (9) 24:9,10 68:25 69:2 143:7,9,16 172:2 176:17

4,800 (1) 69:7

4.30 (1) 106:24

4.50 (1) 128:24

40 (7) 100:5 101:21 107:21 111:5 122:6 153:16 180:8

40,000 (1) 112:13

420,000 (3) 104:4 114:21 116:12

44 (1) 124:3

44.119 (1) 124:2

5

5 (10) 49:22 56:9,13 57:7 120:7 134:1 135:1 174:14 176:16,18

5.00 (2) 106:12 107:1

5.10 (1) 195:25

5.13 (1) 101:3

5.14 (2) 101:2,6

5.15 (1) 151:24

5.2 (1) 166:15

5.4 (1) 59:21

5.5 (1) 60:5

5.8 (2) 60:13,20

5.9 (1) 61:5

50 (16) 34:25 35:2,12 94:20 136:8 154:14 154:14,15 158:22 159:3,17 162:10 167:11 175:12,16 176:9

50-year (1) 35:10

500,000 (13) 103:4,17 104:7,16 105:18 110:4 111:10,24 112:19 113:7,16 115:15 116:11

5th (1) 129:3

6

6 (8) 30:7,21 31:10 52:8 56:9,13 57:7 63:24

6.1 (2) 63:24 75:23

6.42 (1) 129:4

65 (1) 137:4

68 (1) 147:6

69.76 (1) 122:3

695.955 (1) 149:13

7

7 (7) 13:14 56:9,14 57:7 63:1 100:15 177:15

70 (3) 122:1,4,14

73 (1) 122:15

8

8 (3) 1:1 112:18 197:4

8-hectare (1) 113:7

8.1 (2) 77:8 109:11

8.2 (1) 111:9

8.52 (1) 129:2

80 (1) 111:5

859.76 (1) 129:1

86 (1) 122:10

9

9 (4) 39:11 57:11 102:22 197:5 9.30 (5) 1:2 152:18 191:19 195:24

196:1

9.45 (1) 115:2

9.46 (1) 115:2

9.47 (2) 115:2,13

9.48 (2) 115:2,18

9.49 (1) 115:22

9.50 (2) 115:3,22

95 (2) 49:23 50:20

99-year (1) 132:4

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900