Short answer. That is exactly what the rule allows. Rule 131, Section 3 presumes That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. The word doing the work is willfully — the presumption answers deliberate withholding, not evidence that is merely unavailable.
What the law says
That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced
Rule 131, Section 3 — Disputable presumptions. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence
Rule 131, Section 3 — Disputable presumptions. Read the full provision →
Why the law draws this inference
A party who holds a document that would settle a question, and keeps it back, is telling the court something without saying it. The presumption simply says the obvious thing out loud: evidence deliberately withheld is treated as though it would have hurt the person withholding it. Without such a rule, suppressing an unhelpful record would be costless and often decisive, because the other side frequently has no independent way of obtaining it. The clause removes the incentive by making concealment carry its own penalty.
"Willfully" is the threshold
This is not a presumption against every gap in the evidence. It reaches suppression that is willful — a deliberate choice to keep back something the party could produce. Evidence that was genuinely lost, destroyed by events outside anyone's control, or is equally available to both sides does not fit the description. Nor does a failure to produce something the party never had. Before relying on the clause, be able to show that the material exists, that it is within the other party's control, and that they chose not to bring it forward.
It is disputable, like the rest of Section 3
The section's opening words apply here too: these presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence. So the party accused of suppression can answer it — by producing the material after all, by showing it was destroyed in the ordinary course long before the dispute, or by showing it is privileged and therefore lawfully withheld. A lawful refusal to disclose is not the same as suppression, and treating it as such is the commonest overreach with this clause.
Build the record before you argue it
The presumption rewards a party who has made the demand concrete. Ask for the specific document, in writing, identifying it clearly enough that there is no doubt what was requested. Vague complaints that the other side is "hiding things" give a court nothing to work with. What makes this clause bite is a clear record showing exactly what was asked for, that it was in the other party's hands, and that no answer came.