Originally Posted by Unregistered

It's political theatre at its finest (and most ridiculous). Think LT thought that the case was totally unwinnable, so he decided to use the case to try and embarrass LHL, which is why his line of questioning was along the lines of "this is politically motivated" as opposed to proving that no defamation had occurred.

Apparently, LT submitted that there was no case to answer (meaning that you refuse to submit a defence on the grounds that the case has completely no merit and cannot be proven). Most litigators know that "no case to answer" is rarely used, because it's generally used when someone has filed a frivolous lawsuit (with absolutely no legal merit). However, if the other side can make out the basic elements of the case, you're pretty much screwed because you didn't submit a defence at all.

I think it's a good political strategy - although a really bad legal one for Leong.

On LT's side, he gets to go face-to-face with LHL, and try to embarrass him (or trick him into stating that the lawsuit was political). On the other hand, he can "concede" because there isn't really a good defence anyway, but he can save face and say that he refused to play ball with the "corrupt" courts (galvanising his supporters to complain about the unfairness of the situation).

I'm not going to go into the merits of the lawsuit (that's for the Courts to decide), but honestly, Leong doesn't stand much of a chance in the lawsuit because of LT's submission of no case to answer (even if Leong did indeed have a strong defence - none was put forth).