Browne v Dunn does not necessarily require puttage of a proposition if that proposition is already clear to the opponent through pleadings, witness statements, etc. The rule in Browne v Dunn is frequently misunderstood as requiring puttage even if the proposition is clear to the opposing party in such a way.
See eg Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Visy Packaging Pty Ltd (No 3)  FCA 525, discussed at http://www.the-civil-lawyer.net/2013/06/browne-v-dunn-automotive-food-metals.html. See also Odgers, [1.2.4440].
Importantly, Browne v Dunn is not a steadfast rule the violation of which necessarily leads to sanctions. Rather, its violation goes to the weight of the competing propositions.