The court established the standard for evaluating submissions of no case to answer, affirming that the burden of proof lies with the Plaintiff to prove its case on the balance of probabilities.

[1] This was an action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants in their capacity as guarantors for the financial obligations of a company by the name of Facilipack Industries Sdn Bhd ("Facilipack").

[2] This action proceeded to trial and the Plaintiffs case was heard over a period of two days through the testimonies of four witnesses.

[3] Upon the close of the Plaintiffs case the Defendants, through learned counsel, sought to make a submission of no case to answer.

Submission Of No Case To Answer

[4] When, in a civil or commercial trial and after the Plaintiffs case is closed, the defendant seeks to submit that he has no case to answer, the efficacy of the Courts process is put in an awkward position.

[5] As Simon Brown LJ explained in delivering the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Bentham Ltd v. Kythira Investments Ltd and another [2003] All ER (D) 252 (Dec); [2003] EWCA Civ 1794:

"31.... The disadvantages of entertaining a submission of no case to answer are plain and obvious and have been spelled out already in the cases. Essentially they are twofold. First, as Mance LJ explained both in Boyce and in Miller, the submission interrupts the trial process and requires the judge to make up his mind as to the facts on the basis of one sides evidence only and applying the lower test of a prima facie case with the result that, if he rejects the submission, he must then make up his mind afresh in the light of whatever further evidence has been called and on the application of a different test. This, to say the least, is not a very satisfactory procedure. The second disadvantage, as again Mance LJ made plain in Boyce and Miller, is that if the judge both entertains and accedes to a submission of no case, his judgment may be reversed on appeal with all the expense and inconvenience resulting from the need to resume the hearing or, more probably, retry the action."

[Emphasis Added]

(See Boyce v. Wyatt Engineering [2001] All ER (D) 16 (May); Miller (t/a Waterloo Plant) v. Margaret Cawley [2002] All ER (D) 452 (Jul) and see also Alexander v. Rayson [1936] 1 KB 169 at 178).

[6] In light of such considerations, the practice and basic principles relating to a submission of no case to answer in a civil trial were set out by Ramly FCJ in Yui Chin Song & Ors v. Lee Ming Chai & Ors, [2019] 6 MLJ 417 in paras [45] and [46]:

"[45] This practice which should be followed by the Court in such circumstance has been approved again and again in a number of authorities such as Laurie v. Raglan Building Co Ltd [1942] 1 KB 152 ( CA ); Yuill v. Yuill [1945] 1 All ER 183; Storey v. Storey [1961] P 63 ( ); Ramayee Gengau & Ors v. Tan Yik Kok & Anor, [1983] 1 CLJ 326; [1983] CLJ Rep 828; Simirah v. Chua Hock Lee & Anor; [1963] MLJ 239; and Young v. Rank [1950] 2 KB 510.

[46] The basic principles on the issue as adopted in those authorities cited above may be summarised as follows-

(i) where the defence submits no case to answer, the trial judge must put to the defence the election available as to whether he wishes to call evidence for the defence or not; the judge should generally refuse to make such a ruling on such submission of no case to answer unless the defence makes it clear that he does not intend to call evidence;

(ii) if the judge does not put the defendant to election whether to call evidence or not, then in such a situation the defence retains his right to call evidence if his submission fails; and

(iii) if the defendant or his counsel has so elected, he is bou