ANG HOCK HENG v NGU TIENG UNG

wa-22ncc-564-08-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 13 October 2025 • WA-22NCC-564-08/2023 • 14 min read
7 cases cited (0 SG, 7 foreign)

Catchwords

Defendant elected to submit no case to answer-Law on ‘no case to answer'-From decided cases, the principles applicable when a defendant submits 'No case to Answer' are as follows:-i.At the close of the plaintiff’s case, a defendant can opt not to call any witness for the defence but instead make a submission of 'No case to answer’;-ii.Where the defence submits 'No case to answer', the trial judge must put the defence counsel to his election, namely, that if he elects to not call evidence, he would stand or fall on his submissions;-iii.The judge should refuse to make a ruling on a submission of 'No case to answer' unless the defence makes it clear that he does not intend to call any witness for the defence;-iv.For the purpose of testing whether there is a case to answer, all the evidence given must be presumed to be true-v.If the plaintiff’s evidence does not appear to be either inherently incredible or inherently improbable, it is the duty of the judge to accept the evidence as true in the absence of any evidence from the defendant going the other way-vi.Adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant for failing to call any witnesses should the circumstances appropriately call for such an adverse inference-vii. However, even if the plaintiff's evidence is presumed to be true and adverse inference is drawn, the burden of proof at all times is borne by the plaintiff on the balance of probabilities to establish his case against the defendant. It is for the plaintiff to prove his case and satisfy the court that his claim is well-founded before the court can grant judgment on his claim. The fact that the defendant has led no evidence or called no witnesses does not absolve the plaintiff from discharging his burden in law-given two consequences that follow when a defendant refrained from giving evidence by choosing to elect no case to answer-25. The first consequence is the evidence given by the plaintiff ought to be presumed to be true. If the plaintiff’s evidence does not appear to be either inherently incredible or inherently improbable, it is the duty of the judge to accept the evidence as true in the absence of any evidence from the defendant going the other way-26.The second consequence is the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference from the absence of testimony from the defendant who might be expected to have material evidence to give on an issue in an action-the burden to prove forgery is on him-the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies the same-Facts, not evidence, required to be pleaded-under Order 18 rule 7(1) ROC 2012 evidence need not be pleaded and only material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim must be pleaded-

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Counsel (5)

Elaine, Yun & Associates Firm Ganaeswaren & Latib Firm Elaine Foong Counsel Plaintiff Liao Jia wen Counsel Defendant Tay Shieh Chin Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

Ang Hock Heng Plaintiff Ngu Tieng Ung Defendant

Statutes Cited

Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (7)

MY (7)
[1997] 3 MLJ 693 [1997] 4 AMR 3744 [1997] 4 CLJ 509 [2009] 6 MLJ 751 [2015] 2 AMR 124 [2015] 2 CLJ 1037 [2015] 3 MLJ 609

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-22ncc-564-08-2023)