Primary school teacher Mr Jonathan Lock has turned down insurer NTUC Income's offer to waive a $45,000 legal bill and to give a goodwill payment of $25,000.

Instead, he wants the Appeals Court to decide whether an earlier court decision which made him ultimately liable for Income's legal bills still holds.

The turn-around has taken NTUC Income by surprise. Just two weeks ago, Mr Lock, 35, and his wife declared themselves 'overjoyed' at its offer.

Mr Lock's legal tangle arose from an accident he was involved in in November 2004.

In March last year, the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre awarded him $188 and ordered the other vehicle owner Jessiline Goh to pay $1,200 in costs.

But Ms Goh took the case to the High Court and argued that the centre - now known as the e@dr Centre - was not a court.

It agreed, and later this year, Mr Lock found himself saddled with a $45,000 bill from Income, Ms Goh's insurer, and an $80,000 bill from his own former lawyer, Mr Andrew Hanam.

He was waiting for a visit from the court baliff to seize items from his home when his story was made public on Sept 8.

NTUC Income, on learning the situation, held out the olive branch. Its chief executive officer Tan Suee Chieh said the case had been a 'misapplication' of its internal rules. The insurer also offered $25,000 to help Mr Lock.

Mr Tan had said it was the company's way of helping someone who had "found himself caught in the middle of a protracted and unnecessary legal process".

But a condition attached to Income's offer was that Mr Lock drop his case that was pending in the Appeals Court.

Now, Mr Lock has had a change of heart: His case is up for hearing on Oct 2.

He also has to appear in court two days later, on Oct 4, as Mr Hanam is asking the court to assess his legal fees.

Mr Lock, in turn, is counter-suing his former lawyer for allegedly inadequate services.

As he explained it, an issue of public interest was at stake: whether the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre was indeed a court.

Winning the appeal, said his lawyer Joseph Chen, would void the NTUC Income bill, and strengthen his case against Mr Hanam.

"Therefore the point of law will have to be addressed first to guide the court in its subsequent adjudication on Oct 4," said Mr Chen.

Lawyer Chandra Mohan Nair from Tan Rajah & Cheah said Mr Lock's move appears to be a positive one because now the Court of Appeal is "given the opportunity to clarify the status of the e@dr Centre - once and for all".

Asked why he had been so delighted with the Income offer earlier, Mr Lock said that they were 'initally relieved' because of all the tension that he and his family had been facing.

But accepting the offer would only leave the problem half-solved, he said.

"When the offer was made, NTUC Income's CEO Tan Suee Chieh said that the $25,000 was for us to start our family. But, realistically it would have been used to fight another case.

"So I am taking up the appeal in the hope that the Court of Appeal will do justice," Mr Lock added.
Income found out about Mr Lock's decision on Monday, when legal papers were served on its lawyers, Assomull & Partners.

"We are taken aback by the turn of events and are discussing our next move," said its spokesman yesterday.