Plaintiff mortgaged property to Defendant on the basis that payment would take place at a set rate of interest per year over 40 years.
CA held that this did not contradict the requirement for redemption.
A term postponing repayment (and redemption) over a long period of time is not necessarily a clog on redemption and does not have to be for a “reasonable” time only, as this would be an impediment to business.
However he acknowledges that “where the contractual right of redemption is illusory, equity will grant relief by allowing redemption”, as established in Fairclough.
Equity may give relief against contractual terms in a mortgage transaction if they are oppressive or unconscionable