Bellamy v Sabine
(1857) 1 De G & J 56618571 min read
The case in brief30-second read
- Facts
- Property was transferred during pendency of a suit concerning it. Transferee claimed no knowledge of the pending suit. Question: does lis pendens require notice to the transferee?
- Issue
- Whether the doctrine of lis pendens is based on notice or on an independent principle of public policy.
- Held
- Lis pendens is NOT based on notice. It rests on the principle that the adjudication of the court must not be rendered nugatory by private transfers during litigation. It applies regardless of whether the transferee had actual knowledge.
- Principle
- Lis pendens operates on principle of public policy and necessity, not on notice
Facts
- Property was transferred during pendency of a suit concerning it
- Transferee claimed no knowledge of the pending suit
- Question: does lis pendens require notice to the transferee?
Issue
- Whether the doctrine of lis pendens is based on notice or on an independent principle of public policy.
Held
- Lis pendens is NOT based on notice. It rests on the principle that the adjudication of the court must not be rendered nugatory by private transfers during litigation. It applies regardless of whether the transferee had actual knowledge.
Ratio decidendi
The foundation is necessity and public policy: if parties could defeat judgments by transferring during suit, the entire judicial process would be futile. Whether the buyer knew or did not know is irrelevant: the doctrine applies to protect the integrity of court proceedings.
Exam use
How to use it in an answer
Foundational authority whenever S.52 is discussed. Cite to answer "Is lis pendens based on notice?" Always NO, it is public policy. Key line: "Lis pendens operates on necessity, not on notice."
Cite this
Citation
Bellamy v Sabine (1857) 1 De G & J 566Reported: (1857) 1 De G & J 566. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.