Fairclough v Swan Brewery [1912] AC 565

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal