Wee Chong Jin CJ:

This is an appeal from a judgment of T Kulasekaram J in the High Court of Singapore in an action brought by the respondents to recover from the appellants under the provisions of s. 8 of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Ordinance 1960 the sum of $31,500 and costs being the amount of a judgment and costs obtained by the respondents against Foo Tai Pou in Civil Suit No. 1653 of 1961 in the High Court of Singapore.

The claim against Foo Tai Pou was made by the respondents as the administratrices of the estate of Wan Lye Sum deceased for damages for the dependents and for the estate of the said deceased as the result of the negligent driving of the said Foo Tai Pou of motor van SG 5063 on 25 June 1961 which resulted in the death of the deceased.

In the present action the respondents, in para. 3 of their statement of claim, pleaded that at the time of the accident the said Foo Tai Pou (hereinafter referred to as 'Foo') was driving the motor van on the order or alternatively with the permission of one Yeo Soo Moh (hereinafter referred to as 'Yeo') to whom a policy of insurance had been issued by the appellants under which policy the appellants agreed to insure Yeo and any other person driving on Yeo's order or with his permission in respect of any liability at law for compensation costs and expenses which might be incurred by Yeo or any other person driving on Yeo's order or with his permission in respect of death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of motor van SG 5063.

The appellants in their defence denied that Foo, at the time of the accident, was driving the said motor van on the order of Yeo, because they allege that Yeo had sold the said motor van and had parted with possession of it to Foo before the date of the accident. They did not deny that Foo was at the material time driving with the permission of Yeo and accordingly from the pleadings the appellants did not join issue with the respondents on the latter's averment that Foo was at the time of the accident driving the motor van with the permission of Yeo.

Nor did the appellants in their defence plead that at the time of the accident the motor van was being used for a purpose other than a use in connection with Yeo's business so that, there being a condition in the policy of insurance expressly excluding liability in respect of any accident loss damage or liability caused sustained or incurred whilst the vehicle was being used otherwise than in accordance with the limitations as to use as specified in the policy of insurance, the damages and costs were not a liability covered by the terms of their policy of insurance.

On the pleadings therefore no issue arose as to whether or not at the time of the accident the motor van was being used in connection with Yeo's business.

It was not surprising therefore that at the trial the evidence called on behalf of both parties related almost entirely to the sole question whether or not Yeo had sold and parted with the possession of the motor van SG 5063 to Foo before the date of the accident.

For present purposes the material facts found by the trial Judge disclosed that in October 1960 Foo was employed by Yeo to sell flour on a commission basis. For the purposes of this employment, Foo used a bicycle owned by Yeo who was at that time also the owner of motor van SG 5063.

A few days later, Yeo told Foo he wanted to sell this motor van and Foo after some discussion with Yeo, agreed to buy it as it would be more convenient for him to go about his work in a motor van rather than on a bicycle. The price was agreed at $1,600, of which Foo was to pay a first instalment of $800, and the balance of $800 by monthly instalments of $200.

An agreement was drawn up and executed by the parties on 29 November 1960 at which time Foo paid Yeo $800. The terms of this agreement are not material for the purposes of this appeal. After the execution of this agreement t