James Foong JCA:

Introduction

[1] The appellant had filed a Summons in the Magistrate's Court in Lumut, Perak against the respondent for a sum of RM1,074 for sewerage services (the said services) provided by the appellant to the respondent as stated in various bills forwarded to the respondent. The said services were rendered pursuant to the Sewerage Services Act 1993 (the said Act) and the rules and regulations made thereunder.

[2] The respondent had filed his defence denying this claim and insisted that the appellant has never provided the said services nor sent him any bills.

[3] Subsequent to the filing of his defence, the respondent applied to the Magistrate Court (the application) to strike out the plaintiff's summons and statement of claim under O. 14 r. 21(1) of the Subordinate Courts Rules 1980 on the grounds that the appellant's claim is frivolous and an abuse of the Court's process. In his affidavit in support, the respondent affirmed as follows:

(a) that he has never requested for the said services to be provided to his premises and he has no contractual relationship with the appellant;

(b) that he has been advised by his solicitors that the appellant does not possess any right in law to claim against him;

(c) that he has further been advised by his solicitors that the plaintiff has no right to claim against him in law.

[4] The appellant did not file any affidavit in reply.

[5] On 2 October 2003, the Magistrate dismissed the application with costs. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the respondent appealed to the High Court.

[6] The learned High Court Judge entertained this appeal despite the claim involved is below RM10,000. He allowed the appeal with costs. This is reported in Yong Kon Fatt v. Indah Water Konsortium Sdn Bhd, [2006] 1 MLJ 180. As a result of his decision, the appellant brought this appeal before us.

[7] After hearing this appeal on 15 January 2007, we reserved judgment. On 16 March 2007, we delivered our unanimous decision allowing this appeal with costs here and below. We also set aside the order of the High Court and affirmed the order of the Magistrate given on 2 October 2003. I now give my reasons for doing so. But first, allow me to disclose the primary grounds proffered by the learned High Court Judge in ruling in favour of the respondent.

Grounds Advanced By The High Court

[8] In his grounds of judgment, the learned High Court Judge first justified his decision to entertain this appeal. He was of the view that though the amount claimed is below RM10,000 there are questions of law involving the said Act and the regulations made thereunder to be decided.

[9] As for the substantive matter under appeal, he held that since the appellant did not file an affidavit in reply to the allegations of the respondent contained in the respondent's affidavit which were: the said services were never provided by the appellants to the respondent and neither were any bills sent to the respondent, these allegations are deemed admitted by the appellant. For support, the learned High Court Judge cited the following cases: Overseas Investment Pte Ltd v. Anthony William O'Brien & Anor, [1988] 3 MLJ 332 , Alloy Automotive Sdn. Bhd. v. Perusahaan Ironfield Sdn Bhd, [1986] 1 MLJ 382; [1986] CLJ (Rep) 45; [1986] 1 CLJ 2, Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v. Public Bank Bhd, [1995] 1 MLJ 281, Sunrise Sdn. Bhd. v. First Profile (M) Sdn. Bhd.& Anor; [1996] 3 MLJ 533; [1997] 1 CLJ 529; [1997] 1 AMR 1.

[10] The said judge then declared that the "plaintiff's statement of claim does not contain any particulars as to the period when the services were provided and the basis of the amount calculated to warrant the levy of RM1,074 so as to give sufficient notice of the claim and consequently that itself obviously calls for a rebuttal evidence by an affidavit in reply by the plaintiff to the defendant's application to strike out the plaintiff's claim so that the plaintiff's claim may have a basis that it should be determined at a full trial".

[11] Nex