In which situation would the Jones v Dunkel rule not be applicable?

The Jones v Dunkel rule applies in situations where the absence of a witness raises an inference that their testimony would not support the case of the party who failed to call them. This inference might arise from circumstances where the witness is available but not called to testify, creating a presumption that their evidence would be unfavorable to that party.

In the scenario where a party is not legally required to provide evidence, the rule does not apply because there is no expectation or obligation to call that witness. The absence of evidence in such a context does not imply a negative inference against the party. Instead, it reflects the strategic choice of the party not to present evidence. Thus, because the Jones v Dunkel rule relies on the premise that the absence of a witness can create an adverse inference due to the expectation that they would ordinarily be presented, this specific situation would not trigger the rule.

The other scenarios would still invoke considerations under the Jones v Dunkel principle because they involve circumstances where a witness potentially has relevant evidence that could be deemed necessary to the case, such as offering an explanation for their absence or when a document contradicts the party's position, both of which introduce questions about the implications of that absence.