Australia: Principle in Jones v Dunkel - an adverse inference must be supported by other unfavourable evidence

Last Updated: 18 April 2008
Article by Alexis King

Gaskell v Denkas Building Services Pty Limited (2008) NSWCA35

Court of Appeal NSW

Hodgson JA, Basten JA and Bryson AJA

In Brief

  • The failure of a party to call a witness does not necessarily give rise to an adverse inference being drawn in accordance with Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298. An unfavourable inference is drawn only if evidence otherwise provides a basis on which that unfavourable inference can be drawn. An unfavourable inference cannot be drawn solely on the basis that the witness was not called, there must be a basis elsewhere in evidence to support that inference.
  • The rule in Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 relates to the unexplained failure of a party to give evidence which may, in appropriate circumstances, lead to an inference that the uncalled evidence would not have assisted that party's case.


  • On 10 September 1998 the plaintiff, Mr Gaskell, was injured when he slipped on the floor of the men's toilet in an office building at Railway Parade Engadine. Mr Gaskell's company was the tenant of an office suite owned by Denkas Building Services Pty Limited, the first defendant, and Durrusi Holdings Pty Limited, the second defendant. Proceedings were later discontinued against the second defendant as the company was deregistered.
  • The men's toilet in the office building was one of the common areas for use by the plaintiff and other tenants and persons associated with them. The lessors were the occupiers of the common areas including the toilet.
  • The managing agent, Harding Rogers & Associates Pty Limited ("HRA"), the third defendant, had responsibility for managing the common areas including cleaning.
  • The major question for resolution was whether the plaintiff had observed pooling of water on the floor of the men's toilet on occasions prior to 10 September 1998 and, if so, whether he had ever complained to representatives of Denkas or HRA about this matter.
  • The plaintiff alleged he complained to Mr Kasunic, the principal of Denkas, before the accident that there was cooling of water in the men's toilet.
  • To establish negligence it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the occupier or the managing agent, or both, knew or ought reasonably to have known of the danger of slipping on the tiles in the toilet. This would show reasonable forseeability of danger of slips and falls, and consideration would move to the standard of care: to the reasonable response of the occupier to the foreseeable risks.

District Court

  • The trial judge, Johnson J., did not consider the plaintiff to be a credible witness, finding that the plaintiff had not complained to the defendants about pooling of water. Bearing in mind the plaintiff's propensity for written complaint, in respect of these matters, Johnson J found it difficult to understand that the plaintiff did not refer to his prior complaints of pooling in the bathroom prior to 10 September 1998 or when writing to the defendants following the incident.
  • The trial judge found the absence of such contemporaneous written complaint after the fall was a telling factor against the plaintiff's account of events allegedly preceding the fall.
  • The plaintiff's position was further compounded by the matters which were alleged, and not alleged, by way of further and better particulars provided before the hearing, in the plaintiff's counsel's opening address and in the plaintiff's own evidence in chief on the first day of the trial. No mention was made of the plaintiff's experiences with water pooling on the bathroom floor and subsequent complaints before his accident on 10 September 1998 until the sudden andsomewhat dramatic change in the plaintiff's evidence on the second day of the trial when it was alleged the plaintiff had earlier observed water pooling and alerted the representatives of Denkas and HRH to that fact. The trial judge found this difficult to accept.
  • The plaintiff's position was worsened further by the sworn evidence of Mr Rogers and Mr Harding that no such complaint was ever made to them. The trial judge considered this fortified his conclusion that the plaintiff's evidence did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that some prior complaint was made.
  • His Honour disposed of the case against HRA by finding it had not been established that HRA was ever informed of any alleged pooling problem in the toilet and therefore the plaintiff had not demonstrated any negligence on HRA's part.
  • In disposing of the case against Denkas his Honour found in circumstances where Denkas was unaware of any alleged pooling problem in the men's toilet and a system of cleaning was in place with respect to that facility, no basis had been demonstrated by the plaintiff for a verdict under the claim in contract. There had been an accident-free history in the men's toilet for several years prior to 10 September 198. The first slip and fall accident was that involving the plaintiff. The premises were reasonably fit and safe for ordinary use as a men's toilet to be used by adult males in conjunction with commercial office premises: cf Jones v Bartlett at 178-180 per Gleeson CJ.

Court of Appeal Decision

  • Bryson AJA delivered the unanimous judgment (Hodgson JA and Basten JA agreed), dismissing the appeal.
  • His Honour held that the trial judge's rejection of the plaintiff's evidence of prior complaint was a sufficient basis for the verdict for the defendants because, on the evidence, the plaintiff's prior complaints were the only basis on which it could have been found that the defendants knew or ought to have known of the recurring presence of pooled water.
  • Bryson AJA considered prior knowledge of water pooling on the floor was a significant issue as the trial judge said; unless the occupier and managing agent knew, or reasonably ought to have known that pooling of water on the tiles happened recurringly there was no basis for deciding there was a reasonably foreseeable risk of slips and falls caused by interaction of the tiles and water on them. His Honour indicated the standard of care and reasonable response are later considerations.
  • His Honour considered the trial judge's disposition on the issue of the plaintiff's credibility was not based on an observation or view about his demeanour while giving evidence, but rather was founded upon careful reference to the evidence; of matters and circumstances which led the trial judge not to rely on the plaintiff's evidence.
  • Such evidence caused the trial judge to defer from drawing an adverse inference upon Denkas for failing to call its director Mr Kasunic, who was the person the plaintiff alleged he directed his complaints to. The trial judge referred to thepassage in the judgment of Campbell J in Manly Council v Byrne (2004) NSWCA123 at 51:

" Thus, if a witness is not called two different type of results might follow. The first is that the tribunal of fact might infer that the evidence of the absent witness, if called, would not have assisted the party who failed to call that witness. The second is that the tribunal of fact might draw with greater confidence any inference unfavourable to the party who failed to call the witness, if that witness seems to be in a position to cast light on whether that inference should properly be drawn. "

Even though a jury should be directed without the availability of the inferences which are recognised by Jones v. Dunkel, it is entirely a matter for the jury whether it actually draws one or both of those inferences: Café v Australian Portland Cement Co Pty Limited(1965) 83WN (NSW) (Pt 1) 280. Applying this principle to this situation of a trial judge alone, there is no compulsion on the trial judge to draw either of the Jones v Dunkel inferences."

  • The trial judge did not draw an adverse inference in relation to Denkas's failure to call Mr Kasunic because of his view concerning the facts which could be found on the evidence of the plaintiff, that the trial judge considered to be unsatisfactory. Bryson AJA considered the trial judge's reasoning to be "orthodox and correct" and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal.


  • The failure of a party to call a witness does not necessarily give rise to an adverse inference being drawn in accordance with Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298. Such an inference is available only if evidence otherwise provides a basis on which that unfavourable inference can be drawn. An unfavourable inference cannot be drawn solely on the basis that the witness was not called. There must be a basis elsewhere in evidence to support the inference.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions