Suriyadi Halim Omar J:

This is a running-down case pursuant to a judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of RM9,150, emanating from the Sessions Court. The original claim was over RM27,000. Being dissatisfied with that decision, only the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") filed a Notice of Appeal. Down below, the Court had adjudged the plaintiff 2/3 liable whilst the defendant 1/3. The Notice of Appeal reads thus:

AMBIL PERHATIAN bahawa Lein Tiam Hock, perayu yang dinamakan di atas tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Tuan Rajendran Nayagam yang diberikan pada 6 haribulan Mac, 1998 dan dengan ini merayu kepada Mahkamah Tinggi terhadap keseluruhan keputusan tersebut terhadap isu liabiliti dan kuantum.

TRANSLATION

TAKE NOTE that Lein Tiam Hock, the abovenamed appellant is not satisfied with the decision of the Sessions Court judge Tuan Rajendran Nayagam delivered on March 6, 1998 and therefore appeals to the High Court on the judgment on liability and quantum.

Before the case commenced, the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent"), posed a preliminary objection on the premise that no appeal should be entertained due to legal impediments.The reason supplied was that, the amount in dispute or the value of the subject-matter at hand did not exceed RM10,000, nor was there any question of law to be resolved by the Court.The foundation of this objection is s 28 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, and it reads:

(1) Subject to any other written law, no appeal shall lie to the High Court from a decision of a subordinate Court in any civil cause or matter where the amount in dispute or the value of the subject-matter is ten thousand ringgit or less except on a question of law.

Approaching this provision from a different perspective, an appeal to the High Court, in brief, shall be entertained only if:

(i) a decision has been pronounced by a subordinate Court;

(ii) that decision relates to a civil cause or matter; and

(iii) the amount in dispute or the value of the subject-matter is over RM10,000; or

(iv) there is a question of law to be resolved.

As gauged from the above Notice of Appeal, the matter under appeal was limited to the issue of liability and quantum. In the event I decide that the disputed amount, or value of the subject-matter is not over RM10,000, that notice procedurally is flawed. This is so as it is silent as to the question of law to be resolved (Zain Azahari bin Zainal Abidin lwn. Wearne Brothers (1983) Sdn Bhd, [1997] 5 MLJ 39; Sulaiman bin Mohamad v. Malayan Banking Bhd; Mohamad Safuan bin Wasidin & Anor v. Mohd Ridhuan bin Ahmad (An Infant); [1994] 2 MLJ 187). In open Court, the liability issue was mercifully conceded to by the appellant, though not the quantum. The respondent submitted that as the adjudged sum was only RM9,150, an amount which did not exceed the RM10,000, the appeal was incompetent. The appellant on the other hand ventilated that the Court should not view the judgment sum to be the disputed amount but the RM27,000, as claimed by the respondent. To resolve the supposed ambiguity of s 28, I find it necessary to discuss s 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 referred to by both parties. I also find it necessary to refer to relevant cases which may be traced all the way back to England. I begin with the case of Smith v. Gill [1896] 2 QB 166. The relevant provision under discussion there was s. 120 of the County Courts Act which provided that no right of appeal without leave was permitted if the debt or damage claimed did not exceed 24320. As it were, the above provision was related to matters "claimed". Factually, the sum claimed by the plaintiff was 2433 11s and 3p. Eventhough this sum did not exceed the statutory 24320, the appeal was proceeded with as the Court took into consideration the sums counter-claimed by the defendant. By this course of action, the gross sum exceeded 24320. In the case of Brett v. Thrower [1945] 2 All ER 284, t