Pitman v Johnson

In the case of Pitman v Johnson, the applicants sought to establish their ownership of certain chattels, which were in the possession of Mr Johnson as a result of bankruptcy proceedings. The applicants argued that they were the trustees of a trust and the legal owners of the goods. The court had to determine whether documents relied upon by the applicants were admissible under the Stamp Duties Act 1923 (SA). The court was also required to consider the application of state law regarding the admissibility of documents and how this interacted with federal jurisdiction. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether to grant an adjournment to enable the documents to be assessed and stamped, or to defer rulings on admissibility.

The court held that state law, which provided that the admissibility of documents depended on whether stamp duty had been paid, was binding on the court exercising federal jurisdiction. The court examined the interplay between sections 56 and 9(3)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and section 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The court concluded that the applicants’ case depended on the admissibility of documents dutiable under the Stamp Duties Act 1923 (SA), and that an adjournment should not be granted to enable the documents to be assessed and stamped. The court also ruled that the rulings on admissibility should not be deferred. The applicants had been on notice of the opposition to the tender of the documents, and had assumed the risk that the documents may not be admitted.

The court dismissed the application and noted that the entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.