Santley v Wilde (1899) 2 Ch 474

Facts

  • The case involved a dispute over a mortgage agreement between Santley (the mortgagor) and Wilde (the mortgagee).
  • Santley had mortgaged a property to Wilde as security for a loan.
  • The mortgage deed included a clause enabling Wilde to retain possession of the property and continue to receive rents and profits even after the loan was repaid.
  • Santley sought to redeem the property, arguing that the clause was invalid since it effectively nullified his right to redeem.
  • The court examined the terms of the mortgage and the intentions of both parties.

Issues

  1. Whether a contractual provision allowing the mortgagee to retain possession of the mortgaged property and rents after repayment constitutes a restriction or elimination of the essential right to redeem.
  2. Whether such a clause is unenforceable as a "clog on the equity of redemption."
  3. Whether equity should override contractual provisions that seek to undermine the mortgagor's right to redeem.

Decision

  • The court held that the clause permitting Wilde to retain possession indefinitely, even after loan repayment, was inconsistent with Santley's right to redeem.
  • The offending clause was declared void as it constituted a clog on the equity of redemption.
  • The court permitted Santley to redeem the property upon repayment of the loan.
  • The decision reaffirmed that equity would not enforce any terms undermining the mortgagor’s right to redeem.

Legal Principles

  • The essential right to redeem is an equitable principle preventing a mortgage from being made irredeemable by contractual stipulation.
  • Any provision in a mortgage agreement that restricts or eliminates the mortgagor's right to redeem is void as a clog on the equity of redemption.
  • Equity intervenes to ensure fairness in mortgage transactions, preserving the mortgagor's continuing interest regardless of potentially oppressive contractual terms.
  • The judiciary will scrutinize mortgage terms to prevent exploitation of borrowers and maintain the protection against public policy violations.

Conclusion

Santley v Wilde (1899) 2 Ch 474 confirmed the essential right to redemption in mortgage law, holding that any provision restricting or nullifying a mortgagor's right to redeem is void, thereby safeguarding equitable protection for borrowers against oppressive mortgage terms.

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