AS TEACHER Jonathan Lock ponders over a $45,000 bill for a $188 case he won, his former lawyer Andrew Hanam says this could have been avoided had he not switched lawyers.

But other lawyers question if there was a necessity for him to oppose the insurer's court move.

Mr Lock,35,whose second-hand BMW motorbike was involved in a Nov 2004 collision with a Toyota vehicle driven by Ms Jessiline Goh has drawn public attention over his difficulty to foot the bill.

The case went before the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre (PDRC) in March last year where District Judge Seng Kwang Boon awarded him $188 and ordered Ms Goh to pay costs of almost $1,200.

Mr Lock received his cheque but lawyers from Assomull & Partners representing Ms Goh's insurers appealed the decision through three levels to the High Court on the grounds that the PRDC - now called the e@dr Centre - was not a court and that the order was invalid.

High Court judge Lai Siu Chu agreed and held Mr Lock liable for the total costs after the case went through the various levels - which initially amounted to $65,000 but was reduced after Mr Hanam argued for a review to $45,000.

He filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal and prepared some submissions before Mr Lock discharged him and switched lawyers.

Mr Andrew Hanam, in a letter to The Straits Times on Tuesday, claimed that the Court of Appeal hearing had been delayed due to the various applications taken out by by Mr Lock following the switch.

Had he not done so, "the outcome may have been very different from the situation Mr Lock now finds himself in," said Mr Hanam.

Mr Madan Asomull, lawyer for the insurers, explained yesterday that when the insurers pursued the appeal, it had actually nothing to do with Mr Lock.

"We had already paid what was due to him and took up the case on a crucial point of law for the courts to clarify, as to whether insurers can be exposed to writs of seizure which is a court process when the PDRC is not a court."

Lawyers asked if there was a need for Mr Lock's lawyer to take up the role of being "the court's crusader" to oppose the insurer's appeal moves, which eventually led to the $45,000 bill.

"There was no need to resist the appeal as it was an issue of law which did not involve Mr Lock and would have meant no costs against him," said senior lawyer Subhas Anandan of KhattarWong.

Contacted yesterday, Mr Lock said he would await the outcome of the Court of Appeal hearing on Oct 2. His lawyer Joseph Chen said that a separate High Court hearing fixed for Sept 27 to freeze the order to seize his household goods, would also include an application to pay by instalments.

Mr Hanam has also filed an application, which will be heard in the High Court on Oct 4, to assess the legal fees due to him from Mr Lock for work done.

Meanwhile several ST readers like Ms Celeste Fisher, who expressed "disbelief" at Mr Lock's plight, have offered help "if in a small way."

"Maybe lots of your readers feel this way and money can be raised to help him and his family," said Ms Fisher.

Another reader Ken Lee said a group of friends who had served NS together had pledged about $8,000 to help Mr Lock.