Introduction:

[1] This court granted the appellant leave to appeal on 10 October 2013.

[2] There is only one leave question to consider which reads:

'Whether the Federal court should rely on the ratio set in Ang Hiok Seng v. Yim Yut Kiu , [1997] 2 MLJ 45 in determining the burden of proof in civil fraud?'

[3] At the outset we note that the leave question uses the term 'burden of proof in civil fraud'.

[4] There is of course a difference between the terms 'burden of proof' and 'standard of proof'.

[5] Briefly the former relates to the burden or obligation of proving a fact on the party who exerts the existence of any fact in issue and wishes the court to believe in its existence - ss 102 and 103 of the Evidence Act 1950 ('the Act'). The burden of proof of a party never shifts.

[6] The latter refers to 'the degree of persuasion which the tribunal must feel before it decides that the fact in issue did happen'. (In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening).¹

[7] With respect, after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the real issue for determination is on the standard of proof required in