The Jones v Dunkel rule does not require a party to call merely cumulative witnesses; where witnesses giving evidence on a particular topic have been called, no adverse inference normally arises from failure to call additional witnesses on the same topic. Where the evidence actually admitted is sufficient to prove the case and uncalled witnesses are equally available to both parties, the tribunal of fact is justified in drawing no adverse inference. Jones v Dunkel inferences may in appropriate circumstances be taken into account in assessing eyewitness credibility, but are not a mode of reasoning directed to whether direct eyewitness evidence should be accepted. The question whether a child's individual intelligence and experience (as distinct from age) should be considered in assessing contributory negligence remains unresolved.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 165 later cases that cite this judgment.
22 of the 165 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.