Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian [2021] SGHC 66 The Law on a Submission of No Case to Answer 17 The law on a submission of no case to answer is well-settled following the recent decision by a five-member coram of the Court of Appeal in Ma Hongjin v SCP Holdings Pte Ltd [2020] SGCA 106 at [32] and [33] that: 32 In summary, the plaintiff does indeed bear the legal burden of proving its case against the defendant in a civil case on a balance of probabilities. Where the defendant has made a submission of no case to answer, this particular standard of proof is met or discharged by the plaintiff satisfying the court that there is a prima facie case on each of the essential elements of its claim. This is because in a situation where the defendant has made a submission of no case to answer, such a submission must be coupled with an election not to call evidence (pursuant to the principle laid down in Ho Yew Kong [v Sakae Holdings Ltd and other appeals and other matters [2018] 2 SLR 333 (“Ho Yew Kong”)]), with the result being that if the plaintiff has established a prima facie case on the facts in issue (that are essential to its claim), this would essentially result in the court finding that the plaintiff has discharged its burden of proving the aforementioned facts on a balance of probabilities. This is due to the fact that, upon the plaintiff establishing a prima facie case with respect to the relevant facts in issue, the evidential burden will shift to the defendant. However, because the defendant has had (in the situation of a submission of no case to answer) to elect to call no evidence, it would be unable to adduce (any) evidence to either disprove the plaintiff’s position or weaken it such that the facts that the plaintiff relies upon are “not proved” … 33 We therefore affirm that, in the situation where the defendant has submitted that it has no case to answer and has (as it legally must) also elected to call no evidence if it fails in this submission, the plaintiff would succeed if it can establish that it has a prima facie case on each of the essential elements of its claim. For the avoidance of doubt (and also for the reasons stated above, the plaintiff would (simultaneously) have necessarily proved its (overall) case against the defendant on a balance of probabilities. [Emphasis original] 18 Thus, a defendant who elects to make a submission of no case to answer must make an accompanying election not to call evidence in the event that 8