JUDGMENT

VT Singham J:

[1] Setelah membaca dan meneliti Rekod Rayuan, Rekod Rayuan Tambahan, hujah-hujah bertulis bersama-sama dengan otoriti-otoriti dan seterusnya mendengar hujah-hujah secara lisan oleh kedua-dua pihak keputusan mahkamah adalah seperti berikut:

Pertama:

(i) Mahkamah ini benarkan prosiding rayuan ini diteruskan walaupun tuntutan responden/plaintif adalah kurang daripada RM10,000 dan dihalang di bawahs.28(1) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 . Mahkamah ini benarkan rayuan diteruskan di atas alasan bahawa perayu telah membangkit soalan undang-undang berkaitan dengan AktaSewerage Services Act 1993 dibaca bersama denganSewerage Services (Charges) Regulation 1994 .

[2] As to the appeal, the appellant has raised six questions of law in this appeal:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is in law required to adduce evidence by affidavit to make out a reasonableprima facie cause of action or triable issue of fact when faced with a striking out application by the defendant?

(ii) Whether the Magistrate should have held following Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v. Public Bank, [1995] 1 MLJ 281 that the failure of the plaintiff to rebut or contradict the defendant's assertion that no sewerage services was p