Definition
A Latin phrase from ecclesiastical procedure meaning "things newly come to the notice" of a party — that is, facts which have come to a party's knowledge after the pleadings in a cause have already been closed. The doctrine associated with this phrase permits a party to introduce newly discovered facts into a proceeding even at a late stage, including on appeal, provided the court finds the application proper. The phrase is closely connected with the broader Latin expression noviter perventa (or noviter ad notitiam perventa), which appears more frequently in ecclesiastical law sources and carries the same operative meaning.
In practice, the doctrine functioned as an equitable safety valve within ecclesiastical court procedure: because canon law proceedings were often prolonged and formal, rigid enforcement of pleading deadlines could produce unjust outcomes when material facts emerged only after the record had nominally closed. Leave to plead such facts was not automatic but was granted in appropriate cases at the court's discretion.
---
Common Confusion
Ter ad notitiam perventa and noviter perventa are variant forms of the same procedural concept and appear interchangeably in ecclesiastical law sources. Researchers should not treat them as distinct doctrines. Some sources use noviter ad notitiam perventa as the full form; others abbreviate to noviter perventa or use the ter ad notitiam construction. All refer to the same principle: late-emerging facts that may be pleaded by leave of court. Confusion arises because the Latin phrasing is inconsistent across treatise writers and reporters, and indexing in historical compilations follows no uniform convention.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term belongs almost entirely to ecclesiastical law and is unlikely to appear in common law civil or criminal procedure sources. Researchers encountering it will almost always be working in one of three contexts: English ecclesiastical court records (Consistory, Arches, Prerogative courts), Scottish church court materials, or treatise literature on canon and ecclesiastical procedure.
Several navigational points are important:
First, the doctrine's practical significance lay in matrimonial, probate, and defamation causes before the ecclesiastical courts — the categories of litigation those courts historically controlled. A researcher tracing a disputed will or a separation suit in pre-1858 English ecclesiastical jurisdiction may encounter a party seeking leave to plead noviter perventa after the libel or allegation was already answered.
Second, the phrase drops almost entirely from Anglo-American legal literature after the mid-nineteenth century. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 and the subsequent transfer of probate and matrimonial jurisdiction to civil courts rendered the ecclesiastical pleading system largely obsolete in England. American law never incorporated ecclesiastical court procedure in any systematic way, so the term has no domestic American procedural analog.
Third, the Rapalje & Lawrence entry adds a Scottish appellate dimension — citing Macpherson's Judicial Committee practice — indicating the doctrine could apply on appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from ecclesiastical and colonial courts. Researchers working on Privy Council appeals from ecclesiastical causes should be alert to this.
Fourth, the phrase itself is uncommon enough that corpus searches should cast wide: search noviter perventa, noviter ad notitiam perventa, and facts newly come to notice as well as the full Latin form. Historical indexers were inconsistent.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary and Rapalje & Lawrence give substantially identical definitions, both drawing on the same two primary sources: Phillimore's Ecclesiastical Law and Rogers's Ecclesiastical Law. The Rapalje & Lawrence entry is slightly fuller, adding the appellate application via Macpherson and beginning to quote the maxim novum judicium non dat novum jus — though the entry appears to be cut off in available sources before completing the quotation. That maxim ("a new judgment does not create new law, but declares the old") is conceptually adjacent but distinct: it concerns the declaratory theory of judicial decisions, not the pleading of newly discovered facts, and its appearance in the Rapalje entry likely reflects a transitional note on the limits of what newly pleaded facts could accomplish procedurally.
Neither historical dictionary provides a worked example or case illustration. Both rely entirely on treatise authority rather than reported decisions, which is characteristic of ecclesiastical law sources generally — canonical procedure was governed more by treatise and civilian tradition than by reported case law in the common law sense. Researchers should not expect to find a body of case law developing this doctrine in the way a common law pleading rule would generate precedent.
The historical sources are silent on any common-law equivalent or reception of the doctrine outside the ecclesiastical courts. This silence is itself informative: the concept had no parallel migration into equity or common law pleading.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This doctrine is specific to ecclesiastical court procedure as practiced in England and, to a lesser extent, Scotland. It has no operative existence in American jurisdictions, which never established ecclesiastical courts with civil jurisdiction. Modern researchers in England and Wales will find it only in historical materials predating the 1857 jurisdictional reorganization.
---