WHEN private tutor Tan Lee King drove off from a carpark three years ago with a wheel clamp still attached to one of his car's wheels, he had no idea of the legal trouble he was getting into.

The trip he and the carpark operator took through the court system was resolved only yesterday when the operator, Blenwel Agencies, withdrew its appeal against a decision in his favour.

Mr Tan, 44, who had parked his 13-year-old Nissan Pulsar in a no-parking zone in Loyang Point Shopping Centre, returned to find one of its wheels clamped by Blenwel.

He had no cash on him for the $100 fee he had to pay to get the wheel freed, so he offered to pay by Nets or credit card.

But when the carpark attendant told him to withdraw cash from an ATM, he drove off - wheel clamp and all.
After a few metres, the clamp broke loose and fell off.

Blenwel sued him for $600: the $100 removal fee and $500 for the damaged clamp.

But he counter-sued for an unspecified amount for the damage caused to his car as a result of his driving with the clamp still on.

He claimed the parking attendant "unreasonably" detained his car and alleged that the company's action constituted "attempted extortion or blackmail".

He added that the attendant refused to resolve the matter amicably when he said he did not have enough cash on him and offered to pay by Nets or credit card.

He said he was asked to walk home, get the documents needed to make a cash withdrawal, get the cash and then return to the carpark to pay the fee in order to get his car back.

Both suits were dismissed initially. Mr Tan later agreed, after settlement talks with Blenwel, to pay it $3,000, but he backed out of the deal.

Blenwel then went to the Subordinate Courts and got a default judgment, which ordered him to pay $3,000 plus $2,000 in costs in three days.

The tutor, represented by lawyer Raymond Ng, managed to get the court to set aside the judgment, and Blenwel was instead ordered to pay costs of $1,500.

Blenwel indicated it would appeal this decision but changed its mind yesterday.

Its lawyer, Ms Carolyn Tan, told the Court of Appeal her client felt sympathetic towards Mr Tan after his story made the news this month.

"The company was perceived to be a bully going after a small guy," she said.

The court allowed the company to withdraw its appeal and ordered it to pay Mr Tan costs of $5,000.

Speaking to reporters, Mr Tan said he was relieved his plight was over after three years.

"It was like a merry-go-round, but finally, there is some closure," he said.