Did you know? The decision in Jones v Dunkel (1959) HCA 8, 101 CLR 298 is a significant case for civil litigation. It relates to the inference that may be drawn from a party’s failure to call a witness or produce evidence in a trial.
The case deals with the situation where one party fails to provide relevant evidence or a witness that could have supported their case, and it establishes guidelines on how the Court may interpret this absence.
Facts of the Case
In Jones v Dunkel, a truck driven by Jones collided with another truck driven by an employee of Dunkel, resulting in Jones’s death. The legal issue centred around whether the driving of Dunkel’s employee was negligent and whether that negligence caused the accident. Dunkel’s employee did not give evidence at trial, and Jones’ representatives argued that this failure on the part of Dunkel to call the employee as a witness should allow an inference to be drawn against Dunkel.
Legal Principle (the Jones v Dunkel inference)
The Jones v Dunkel inference is based on the idea that if a party fails to call a witness or provide evidence that would naturally be expected to support their case, the Court:
- may infer that the evidence would not have assisted the party’s case (i.e. it would likely have been unfavourable); and
- does not make assumptions about the facts of the case – the Court doesn’t speculate about what the missing evidence might have been, but it can draw the inference that the party’s failure to produce evidence suggests it would not have helped their argument.
Limitations of the Inference
- The inference does not fill gaps in the evidence. If there is insufficient evidence overall, the absence of a witness or evidence does not “make up” for it.
- The rule applies where a party could reasonably be expected to provide that evidence (i.e., if they had control over the witness or documents).
- The inference is discretionary. The Court is not required to draw it, and it depends on the circumstances of the case.
Application
The Jones v Dunkel inference is frequently cited in Australian Courts, particularly in civil matters, when one party fails to call relevant witnesses or evidence that would be expected. The case provides a basis for Courts to infer that the missing evidence would not have assisted the party that failed to produce it, though the Court does not speculate on the content of the missing evidence.
About me (Jacob Cafferty) – I am soon to be admitted as a lawyer, with experience in insurance having previously worked as a liability loss adjuster. Away from the office I am a keen Manchester City and Carlton supporter – teams that have both spoiled me with success, and kept me humble!
