Examines how the application of the Stamp Act 1891 s14(4) can lead to refusal to accept unstamped tenancy agreements as evidence in residential possession proceedings. Suggests that those seeking to rely thus on unstamped tenancy agreements should not conclude that their case in court is inevitably lost as there are several arguments available to mitigate the effects of s14 of the 1891 Act. Concludes that the purposes of s14 of the Act would be best served by the adoption of the principle arrived at in "In re Coolgardie, Goldfields Ltd" ([1900] 1CL 475) - the stamping of the agreement before the order is drawn up satisfies the statutory obligations - and its extension to include undertakings given by the litigants themselves. Although the abolition of stamp duty by the Finance Act 2003 will lessen the significance of s14 of the 1891 Act, s14 will continue to create difficulties.