- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in United States
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
What happens when defendants withhold critical documents showing other parties are liable for your client's injuries? Harris v Evans Built Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 104 granted a limitation extension after a signed subcontract wasn't disclosed until nearly two years after the limitation period expired. This case summary is for construction injury lawyers and personal injury practitioners, examining when courts will extend limitation periods based on late disclosure of decisive contractual documents, and why complex trading name structures can obscure the identity of proper defendants on multi-party construction sites.
PLAINTIFF: Mark Harris, male, concreter and foreman
INJURY: Injuries sustained when trench collapsed on him at construction site (specific injury details not specified in this procedural judgment).
ISSUE: The plaintiff needed to sue an additional company (Assured Concreting Services Pty Ltd) but the three-year deadline to start legal action had already expired. He didn't know this company was involved until nearly two years after the plaintiff's 3-year limitation date had passed.
SUMMARY & LEGAL ANALYSIS:
On 23 August 2019, the plaintiff suffered injuries when a trench collapsed on him at a construction site at Rothwell. He was working as a site foreman for what he believed was a business trading as "Assured Concreting Services" (the name on his work shirt and vehicle, and the name he had used for 6+ years).
The case involves complex employer and subcontractor relationships that created confusion about the proper defendants. When the plaintiff started work in 2013, his employer was "The Trustee for Integral Concreting Services Family Trust" but the business traded as "Assured Concreting Services". In March 2016, his employer changed to "The Trustee for the Qld Tilt Panels Family Trust" (for payroll tax reasons), but the trading name remained "Assured Concreting Services" throughout his employment.
Evans Built Pty Ltd was the head contractor on the site. The plaintiff gave proper PIPA notices identifying Evans Built as head contractor and his employer as "The Trustee for the Qld Tilt Panels Family Trust t/as Assured Concreting Services". He commenced proceedings against Evans Built in August 2022 (just before limitation expired) and against his employer in July 2023. These proceedings were consolidated in October 2023.
On 12 September 2023, Evans Built disclosed an unsigned subcontract showing "Assured Concreting Services Pty Ltd atf Integral Concreting Services Family Trust" as the subcontractor. However, the plaintiff's employer then filed pleadings admitting it was responsible for performing work under a subcontract "under the name 'Assured Concreting Services'". This created confusion about whether the plaintiff's employer or a separate entity called "Assured Concreting Services Pty Ltd" was the actual subcontractor.
On 2 July 2024, Evans Built finally disclosed a signed subcontract dated April 2019 between Evans Built and "Assured Concreting Services Pty Ltd" - a completely separate company from the plaintiff's employer. This was the decisive moment: the plaintiff discovered that a third party (not his employer) had subcontractual responsibilities at the worksite and was potentially liable.
The plaintiff applied in January 2025 for: (1) leave to add Assured Concreting Services Pty Ltd as third defendant; (2) leave to amend pleadings; and (3) extension of the limitation period (which had expired in August 2022). Assured opposed the limitation extension.
OUTCOME: The court GRANTED the application, finding:
- Material Fact of Decisive Character: The
existence of the signed subcontract between Evans Built and Assured
Concreting Services Pty Ltd was a material fact of decisive
character. Without knowledge of this contract, the plaintiff would
not have regarded the facts as showing a reasonable prospect of
success against Assured as a separate defendant. The contract
established:
- Assured had sub-contractual responsibilities at the worksite;
- the employer's admission that it performed work under the subcontract was potentially incorrect; and
- another party (Assured) was arguably responsible for the trench collapse.
- Not Within Means of Knowledge: The material
fact was not within the plaintiff's means of knowledge before 2
July 2024. The confusion was understandable given:
- the business he worked for had always traded as "Assured Concreting Services"
- his employer's name had changed but the trading name remained constant;
- Evans Built did not give a contribution notice to Assured;
- WorkCover (insuring his employer) denied liability but gave no contribution notice to Assured;
- Evans Built's PIPA response denied liability but did not identify Assured as a contributor;
- an unsigned subcontract was disclosed in September 2023 but the employer then pleaded it was responsible for the subcontract work;
- only the signed subcontract in July 2024 definitively proved Assured was a separate entity with contractual obligations.
- Reasonable Steps Taken: Once the signed subcontract was disclosed on 2 July 2024, the plaintiff acted promptly by filing the limitation extension application in January 2025. The court found the plaintiff's conduct "perfectly reasonable in the circumstances" - he immediately requested disclosure when the conflicting pleadings arose, and acted quickly once the decisive document was produced.
Key Principles for Practitioners:
- Complex corporate structures and trading names can obscure the identity of proper defendants, particularly where businesses with similar names operate at the same site
- Material facts of decisive character may not be within means of knowledge where multiple defendants provide incomplete or conflicting information during pre-court procedures and early pleadings
- An unsigned contract disclosed during discovery may not constitute a material fact of decisive character if subsequent pleadings create ambiguity about whether that contract was actually executed
- Courts will grant limitation extensions where defendants or their insurers fail to disclose critical documents (like signed subcontracts) during pre-court procedures and early discovery, particularly where those documents would have identified other potentially liable parties
- The "means of knowledge" test recognizes that plaintiffs cannot be expected to know facts that defendants and their insurers deliberately withhold or fail to disclose despite proper requests
- Prompt action after discovery of decisive facts supports granting extensions - here, 7 months from discovery to application was considered reasonable.
DECISION: Harris v Evans Built Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 104
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.
