## Facts

- The case concerned a mortgage agreement between Fairclough (the mortgagor) and Swan Brewery (the mortgagee).
- The mortgage contract included a clause restricting Fairclough’s ability to redeem the property until a certain date, resulting in a significant delay in redemption.
- Fairclough argued that the redemption restriction effectively deprived him of his substantive right to reclaim the property.
- The dispute centered on whether this delayed redemption clause was enforceable given its effect on Fairclough’s right to redeem.

## Issues

1. Whether a mortgage clause that delays redemption for an extended period renders the right to redeem illusory.
2. Whether such a clause is enforceable under equitable principles governing mortgages.
3. The extent to which contractual freedom is limited in the context of protecting essential rights in mortgages.

## Decision

- The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that contractual freedom is not absolute and may be limited by principles of equity.
- The court determined that a mortgage must always preserve the essential right of redemption for the mortgagor.
- The clause delaying redemption was declared void as it undermined the right to redeem, which is fundamental to a mortgage and cannot be nullified by agreement.
- The decision reinforced that substantive rights under a contract, such as redemption in a mortgage, cannot be defeated by overly restrictive or illusory terms.

## Legal Principles

- The right to redeem is an essential and irreducible feature of every mortgage.
- Any contractual term or clause that renders this right illusory or excessively burdensome is void under equitable doctrine.
- Contractual freedom is subject to limitations where the exercise of such freedom would defeat substantive legal or equitable rights.
- Equity will intervene to prevent the abuse of contractual terms that undermine fundamental purposes of an agreement.

## Conclusion

Fairclough v Swan Brewery [1912] AC 565 established that mortgage agreements must not contain terms that effectively negate the mortgagor’s right to redeem. The court emphasized that while parties have freedom to contract, this freedom does not extend to terms that make redemption impossible or illusory, thereby ensuring the protection of substantive rights within mortgage contracts.
