When Identity Confusion Delays a Claim: Extending the Limitation Period under Section 31
In Episode 19 of P.I. Case Note, we examine the Supreme Court’s decision in Harris v Evans Built Pty Ltd, where the plaintiff sought an extension of the limitation period under section 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). This case turns on a deceptively simple issue with complex consequences: the late discovery of the correct legal identity of a party involved in the construction site where the injury occurred.
Mr. Harris initially issued proceedings against his employer and the principal contractor within the limitation period, but only after belated disclosure did it become clear that a third, separate legal entity—similar in name to his employer—was actually the subcontractor responsible for relevant site work. The case explores what constitutes a “material fact of a decisive character” and how the timing of disclosure can affect a claimant’s legal position.
The Court ultimately found Mr. Harris acted reasonably, was unaware of the true identity until the signed contract was finally disclosed, and granted the extension. It’s a cautionary tale for anyone navigating legal entities in a commercial setting—and a strong reminder of the importance of thorough early disclosure by defendants.
Uncertain who to sue or worried you’ve missed a limitation deadline? At accident legal, we help clients untangle corporate identities and pursue the right parties, even when time is running out. Let us guide you through complex claims and limitation extension applications.