Our goal is to help people in the best way possible. this is a basic principle in every case and cause for success. contact us today for a free consultation.
Practice Areas
Newsletter
Sign up to our newsletter
Australia-wide · No win, no fee · Free case evaluation — speak to us today
Legal Doctrine Hub — Legal Concepts
The standard of care is the level of skill and diligence a reasonably competent professional in the same field would have exercised in your circumstances. It is the measuring stick courts use once a duty of care is already established — and understanding it is often the key to knowing whether what happened to you was simply an unfortunate outcome, or a genuine breach worth pursuing.
Understanding the concept
Duty of care and standard of care get used almost interchangeably in everyday conversation, but they’re doing different jobs in a negligence claim.
Duty of care is about the relationship — it asks whether the professional owed you any legal obligation at all. Standard of care picks up where that leaves off. It asks what that obligation actually required of them: what level of skill, care, and diligence were they supposed to bring to the work.
This is an objective test. The court isn’t interested in whether the individual professional believed they were doing their best, or whether they were having an off day. It asks what a reasonably competent person in that profession — facing the same situation, with the same information — would have done.
How the test works
Australian courts don’t pull this standard out of thin air. Under the Civil Liability Acts in force across the states and territories, professionals are generally judged against accepted peer professional opinion — broadly, whether their conduct aligned with practice that was widely accepted by a significant number of their professional peers at the time.
This matters in two ways. First, the standard isn’t fixed by hindsight — it’s anchored to accepted practice as it stood when the conduct occurred. Second, expert evidence plays a central role, with courts typically hearing from professionals in the same field about what a competent practitioner would ordinarily have done.
This is also why documentation carries so much weight in these claims. Clinical notes, file records, and correspondence created at the time often become the clearest evidence of whether accepted practice was actually followed.
Context matters
The standard isn’t a single national benchmark applied the same way to every profession. It flexes depending on the role, the specialisation, and what a client or patient would reasonably expect.
Held to the standard of a competent GP — not to the standard of a specialist, even if a specialist might have caught something the GP missed.
Generally still held to the standard expected of a competent solicitor doing that kind of work — inexperience isn’t usually treated as a reason to lower the bar.
Held to the standard of a competent engineer in that area of practice, taking into account the codes and guidelines that applied at the time.
This isn’t exhaustive — every profession has its own accepted standards, often shaped by industry codes and established practice. But the logic is consistent: the standard reflects what someone holding themselves out as competent in that role should reasonably have delivered.
A landmark Australian case
There is one important area where the standard of care doesn’t simply follow what other professionals in the field were doing — disclosure of risk, particularly in a medical context.
The High Court’s decision in Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 shifted how Australian law approaches this. Rather than asking only what a body of medical opinion considered appropriate disclosure, the Court held that a patient is entitled to be told of a material risk — one that a reasonable person in their position would want to know before agreeing to treatment.
This principle has had a lasting influence well beyond medical negligence, and is frequently referenced wherever a professional’s obligation to disclose risk or explain consequences is in question.
A difficult distinction
This is usually where things get emotionally difficult for someone considering a claim. A bad outcome can happen even when a professional has done everything right — surgery carries inherent risk, markets move unpredictably, and even well-prepared legal arguments can lose. None of that, on its own, points to negligence.
What matters is whether the conduct itself — not the result — fell below what a reasonably competent professional would have done. A surgeon who performs a procedure competently but encounters a recognised, unavoidable complication has likely met the standard of care, even though the outcome was poor. A surgeon who skips a step that any competent practitioner in their position would have taken is a different matter entirely.
This distinction can be hard to sit with, particularly when the consequences have been serious. It’s also exactly the kind of question that benefits from a proper look at the file, rather than guesswork from the outside.
Building a claim
Establishing a breach of the standard of care isn’t usually a matter of opinion — it’s built from evidence. In most claims, that evidence tends to include:
Because this evidence has to be gathered, reviewed, and tested, claims involving standard of care questions are rarely something a person can assess accurately on their own. It usually takes a proper review of the specific facts.
If you’re trying to work out whether what happened to you may amount to a breach of the standard of care, it helps to understand the broader picture first — including how duty of care is established and what’s actually required to prove a breach of duty once that standard is in place. Limitation periods for bringing a claim also vary by state, so it’s worth checking the timeframe that applies to your situation sooner rather than later.
A free case evaluation is a straightforward way to get clarity on whether a professional’s conduct fell below the standard of care — without any obligation to take things further.
Questions we hear often
Duty of care asks whether a legal obligation existed between you and the professional. Standard of care asks what that obligation actually required of them — the level of skill and diligence a reasonably competent person in their position should have shown.
Courts generally rely on expert evidence from other professionals in the same field, alongside relevant industry codes and accepted practice at the time, to determine what a reasonably competent practitioner would have done in the circumstances.
In limited circumstances, yes — particularly around disclosure of risk, following the principle established in Rogers v Whitaker. Common practice is an important guide, but it isn’t always the final word, especially where what a reasonable person would want to know is at issue.
No. A poor result can happen even when a professional has acted competently — risk and uncertainty exist in every profession. The relevant question is whether their conduct fell below what a reasonably competent practitioner would have done, not whether the result was favourable.
Broadly, yes, with some flexibility for specialisation. A general practitioner and a specialist may be judged against different benchmarks for the same presenting issue, because each is expected to meet the standard appropriate to their own role and expertise.
Our goal is to help people in the best way possible. this is a basic principle in every case and cause for success. contact us today for a free consultation.
Sign up to our newsletter