With that ruling, the three-judge court brought the case of primary school teacher Jonathan Lock right back where it started in March last year - in the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre.

Mr Lock was awarded $188 and $1,000 in costs when he took a motorcycle accident case he was involved in to the centre.

After the settlement, his lawyer at that time, Mr Andrew Hanam, started legal proceedings against the other vehicle owner, Ms Jessiline Goh, ostensibly over a disputed $60 amount.

He asked for a writ of seizure even though the deadline had not expired. Lawyers for her insurer, NTUC Income, challenged his move in the High Court, arguing that the centre was not a court.

Justice Lai Siu Chiu agreed, saying that even though the mediation process was presided over by a judge, it did not follow that the centre was a court. Since her judgment, all such settlements had to be endorsed by another judge.

Yesterday, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong said, without elaborating, that 'wrong arguments'' had been made before the judge.

The judge, he said, had erred in holding that a mediation judge has no powers to make orders once a settlement is reached.

More detailed grounds of judgment are expected to be delivered at a later date.

The centre started life in 1994 under Chief Justice Yong Pung How and has since been renamed e@dr Centre as it also deals with online mediation.

Its objective was to provide a settlement forum for disputes without having the parties involved go through costly litigation.

Last year, more than 7,300 cases were resolved by the centre.

When NTUC Income's lawyer, Mr Madan Asomull, asserted the point that the centre was not a court on Tuesday, he came under fire.

Justice Andrew Phang asked: 'How does it follow that it's not a court process? It's within the Subordinate Courts and it involves a district judge.''

Justice V.K. Rajah wondered why the lawyer would insist on the argument that the centre was not a court since it would mean 'greater costs to your client, for the greater public and the whole insurance industry''.

The Subordinate Courts could not comment at press time if it would be dropping the extra step of getting another judge to endorse settlements - a process which Justice Rajah had described as 'absurd''.