WHAT started as a simple $600 dispute over a wheel-clamp incident could head to the Court of Appeal after a carpark operator defied a High Court judge's ruling that the case not proceed any further.

The legal wrangling has already resulted in more than $30,000 in legal costs, evoking the spectre of the recent Jonathan Lock case, in which the Court of Appeal ticked off the lawyers involved for escalating the case to its level.

Justice Choo Han Teck recently turned down carpark operator Blenwel Agencies' application for leave to appeal in its lawsuit against motorist Tan Lee King.

In his written judgment, the High Court judge said one should not be granted permission to appeal against a court's decision to disallow an application to appeal.

He said: "This rule is necessary to ensure finality in matters where the legislature has deemed it fit to prevent excessive litigation."

The judge added at the end: "The plaintiff should not be allowed to advance one step further."

But Blenwel Agencies has defied the High Court by filing an appeal in the Court of Appeal against its decision.

It started when the managing agent for a shopping centre carpark sued Mr Tan, 44, a private tutor, for damaging a wheel clamp at Loyang Point Shopping Centre on 5Sep2004.

At a trial before a district court in March last year , Blenwel claimed that MrTan had parked in an unlawful parking zone.

It alleged that after a wheel was clamped on his Nissan Pulsar, MrTan did not pay the $100 administrative fee to remove it and drove off with the clamp still attached, thus damaging it. The company accused MrTan of being a "road hooligan" and demanded another $500 for damage to its wheel clamp.

Mr Tan claimed the clamp had been released but he could not pay the $100 then as he did not have enough money. He said he offered to pay later but drove off when the other side became unreasonable.

At the trial, Mr Tan defended himself.

In dismissing both sides' claims, the district judge said their arguments were "far too vague for the court or the opposing party to be able to appreciate the case that was to be met".

Blenwel appealed and the High Court ordered a re-trial.

MEDIATION

But before the re-trial, the parties went for mediation at the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre and settled the case in January this year with Mr Tan agreeing to pay Blenwel $3,000, which included legal costs.

The court also ordered the parties to issue a joint press statement stating that MrTan acknowledges Blenwel's rights to carry out wheel-clamping of vehicles that are illegally parked.

But it did not end there.

When Mr Tan turned up at Blenwel's lawyer's office to pay the money, there was a deadlock when he refused to sign the statement. It is not known what was in the statement.

As a result, the parties went back to mediation on 8Feb, when the judge said that Mr Tan did not have to sign the statement.

Again, Mr Tan apparently offered to pay the money, but it was refused.

Some two weeks later, unknown to Mr Tan, Blenwel took the case to the Subordinate Court and got a default judgment, ordering him to pay $3,000 plus $2,000 in costs within three days.

Mr Tan tried to get this judgment set aside, but he failed. He then engaged lawyer Raymond Ng.

District Judge James Leong later allowed Mr Tan's application for the default judgment to be set aside. He ordered Blenwel to pay costs of $1,500 and refused to give it permission to appeal.

Blenwel, through lawyer Carolyn Tan, asked the High Court for leave to appeal.

Agreeing with the district court ruling, Justice Choo threw out its application to appeal against a court's refusal to allow an appeal.

In the first place, he said, the company was wrong to have got a default judgment without Mr Tan's knowledge.

"The defendant tendered payment twice. That was once more than sufficient. I therefore refused to leave to appeal."

Referring to the protracted legal battle, Justice Choo said the law was precisely put in place by Parliament to prevent such cases from escalating into "excessive litigation".

He said: "The plaintiff's claim was no more than $3,000 but because of unreasonable insistence for the joint press release to be signed by the defendant, and the unwise release of $3,000 paid to its solicitors by the defendant, the simple matter was not resolved expediently and incurred $30,000 in legal costs instead."

When contacted by The New Paper, Blenwel's lawyer said it had filed an appeal against Justice Choo's decision to the Court of Appeal.

Mr Tan, who has three children aged between 7 and 12, said he had spent about $5,000 on legal fees, which could go up if the case ends up in Singapore's highest court.

Ironically, he no longer owns the car that caused him so much trouble. He scrapped the 14-year-old vehicle in 2005 and now gets around on either his bicycle or the MRT.

"This case has given me sleepless nights. I feel sick every time I get a legal letter," he said.

"I just want it to be over with."