In this case there was a charging clause (a clause that purported to charge all real estate owned by a contracting party) contained within a credit contract. Pursuant to this a caveat was lodged by the lender and sought to be lapsed by the borrower. The court had to decide whether to extend the operation of the caveat.
Justice Young (CJ in Equity) noted numerous reasons for why the charge might fail but also noted that each would ultimately depend upon facts not presently before him. Accordingly he acknowledged the lender might succeed and so accordingly aloowed the caveat.