Chang Min Tat FJ (delivering the judgement of the Court):

The short question in this appeal is whether the agreement entered into between the parties is a hire-purchase agreement as contended by the appellant-defendant or an outright sale on instalment terms as argued by the respondent-plaintiff. If it is a hire-purchase agreement, then by the terms of it the appellant would have been entitled to re-possess the vehicle on breach of any of the terms 17 the agreement and would not be liable for damages. If an outright sale, the property in the vehicle had passed to the purchaser and the purchaser would have a perfectly valid claim for wrongful repossession.

In the High Court on an application to strike out the claim of the purchaser for damages for wrongful-possession as disclosing no cause of action on the pleadings and having regard to the facts, the learned trial Judge refused to do so. He therefore dismissed the application with costs. From that decision this appeal lies.

The vehicle concerned was a second-hand caterpillar tractor priced at $173,500. The price was such that, as in so many instances, an agreement for purchase by instalments was entered into. This agreem