33 In relation to the Contribution Act, the following principles appear to be common ground. Section 7(1)(c) of the Contribution Act provides that a tortfeasor who is liable to a plaintiff may recover contribution from a second tortfeasor who "is liable" or "would if sued be liable" to the plaintiff for the same damage. The second tortfeasor "is liable" if it has been sued to judgment by the plaintiff. That is not the case here although, as we have noted, the plaintiff has now joined the appellant as a party to these proceedings. It may therefore be that liability will be able to be established under this limb. The second tortfeasor "would if sued be liable", if it was a tortfeasor who would have been held liable in tort had it been sued in a competent court, by proper process, on evidence properly presented, at any time before judgment is entered against the tortfeasor that is claiming contribution: Brambles Constructions Pty Ltd v Helmers [1966] HCA 3; (1966) 114 CLR 213 at 221, per Windeyer J. The question of whether the appellant could fall within that category depends upon whether the plaintiff at any time before judgment against the respondent, establishes a relevant level of disability pursuant to s 93E(3). So far as the level of disability of not less than 30 per cent is concerned, there is no evidence to suggest whether or not the plaintiff may successfully establish that such a level of disability exists. It is simply not possible to ascertain at present whether s 93E(3) will or will not allow damages to be awarded in respect of the disability. It is clear that they could not be awarded at present, there being no relevant agreement or determination. However, such an agreement or determination appears to remain a possibility.