Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian [2021] SGHC 66 submission fails. The defendant here has so elected. Following from that, the plaintiff will succeed so long as he can establish that he has a prima facie case on each of the essential elements of his claim. 19 As the Court of Appeal observed in Lena Leowardi v Yeap Cheen Soo [2015] 1 SLR 581 (“Lena Leowardi”) at [24], in assessing whether the plaintiff has managed to establish a prima facie case, the Court will assume that any evidence led by the plaintiff is true, unless it is inherently incredible or against common sense. Further, as noted by the Court in Relfo Ltd v Bhimji Velji Jadva Varsani [2008] 4 SLR(R) 657 at [20], if circumstantial evidence is relied on by the plaintiff in a situation where the defendant has made a submission of no case to answer, the circumstantial evidence does not have to give rise to an irresistible inference as long as the desired inference is one of the possible inferences which might arise. 20 Viewed holistically, it is only if (a) the plaintiff’s evidence, at face value, does not establish a case in law, or (b) the evidence led by the plaintiff is so unsatisfactory or unreliable that his burden of proof has not been discharged that a submission of no case to answer by a defendant succeeds: Bansal Hemant Govindprasad v Central Bank of India [2003] 2 SLR(R) 33 from [14] to [16]. 21 A further issue which arises for my determination is whether or not an adverse inference should be drawn against the defendant for failing to testify or adduce evidence in his defence. The plaintiff contends that in certain circumstances, a defendant’s silence may be construed as strengthening the plaintiff’s case. The plaintiff points to Thio Keng Poon v Thio Syn Pyn and others and another appeal [2010] 3 SLR 143 (“Thio Keng Poon”) at [43], where the Court of Appeal approved the views of Brooke LJ in the English Court of 9