The rule in Browne v Dunn does not require that specific contrary evidence be put to a witness in cross-examination where the opposing case has been fully exposed through other witnesses and the contest is out in the open; it is sufficient to challenge the reliability of the witness's recollection. A witness's responses of non-remembrance when asked about a prior statement may amount to a denial of the substance of the statement for the purposes of s 106(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), depending on the manner in which the evidence is given.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.