Northern SEQ Distributor-Retailer Authority t/a Unitywater v Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd

The Northern SEQ Distributor-Retailer Authority t/a Unitywater, the plaintiff, filed a proceeding against Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd (MEPL), the first defendant, following alleged breaches of a contract concerning the upgrade of the Kawana Sewage Treatment Plant. Unitywater subsequently amended its claim and statement of claim to include new causes of action. MEPL sought an order that the amendments should take effect from the date the amended claim and statement of claim was filed for limitation purposes. Unitywater applied for an order that the amendments take effect from the date when the proceeding commenced. The court was required to decide whether the amendments in the amended claim and statement of claim were made in accordance with the requirements of rule 376(4) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) and, if not, whether the amendments should take effect from some other time to preserve a possible limitation defence.

The court held that it was appropriate for the contentious amendments to take effect against MEPL from the time the proceeding commenced. The court was satisfied that a fair trial could occur despite the time Unitywater took to make the contentious amendments. It was also satisfied that MEPL would not be unduly prejudiced if the contentious amendments were to take effect from the commencement of the proceeding. The court further found that this would not inappropriately undermine the rationales for the imposition of limitation periods. Therefore, the amendments in the amended claim and statement of claim were to take effect against MEPL for limitation purposes from the date the proceeding commenced.

The court dismissed MEPL’s application and granted the relief sought on Unitywater’s application. It ordered that the amendments in the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim filed on 26 June 2025 take effect against MEPL for limitation purposes from the date the proceeding commenced. The court also ordered that the parties were to be heard as to costs.