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
Legislation › NSW
If a professional has let you down — a lawyer who mishandled your case, a doctor who missed a diagnosis, a financial adviser who steered you wrong — you may already be dealing with real consequences: financial loss, a health setback, or a situation that has upended your life. Understanding the law that governs your right to seek compensation is the first step toward knowing where you stand.
The Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) is the central piece of legislation that courts in New South Wales apply when assessing professional negligence claims. At Fair Go Australia, we work exclusively with professional negligence cases — and this is one of the most important statutes our NSW clients need to understand.
Quick Answer
The Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) is the primary legislation governing negligence law in New South Wales. It applies to most professional negligence claims — including those against lawyers, doctors, accountants, financial advisers, and engineers. The Act sets out the legal tests for duty of care, breach, causation, and damages that courts use to assess whether a professional’s conduct entitles you to compensation.
The Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) is the principal legislation governing negligence law in New South Wales. It sets out the legal framework courts use to determine whether a professional owed you a duty of care, whether they breached that duty, and what compensation you may be entitled to as a result.
The Act applies broadly. It covers claims against solicitors, doctors, accountants, financial advisers, engineers, architects, and most other professionals whose services carry a recognised standard of care. If a professional in NSW has caused you harm through negligence, this Act is almost certainly the framework under which your claim will be assessed.
The Act was shaped by the Ipp Review — a significant government-commissioned review of negligence law conducted in 2002. That review led to reforms that modified several common law principles, particularly around how courts assess the standard of care and the extent of damages available. In plain terms: the Act tightened some rules, balanced others, and provided greater predictability for both claimants and defendants in negligence proceedings.
A duty of care is the legal obligation a professional owes to their client to exercise reasonable skill and care. Under section 5B of the Act, a person is negligent if their conduct falls below the standard of a reasonable person in their position.
For professionals, this standard is set by what a competent practitioner in the same field would have done in the same circumstances. A solicitor is held to the standard of a competent solicitor. A GP is held to the standard of a competent general practitioner. The question courts ask is: would a reasonable professional in that role have acted differently?
If you believe a professional failed to meet that standard, you may have grounds to establish that their duty of care was breached. More detail is available on our duty of care page.
Establishing that a duty of care existed is one thing. Proving it was breached is another. Under section 5B, courts consider several factors when determining whether conduct amounts to a breach:
To put this in concrete terms: if a solicitor failed to advise you that a limitation period was about to expire, courts would weigh up how foreseeable that outcome was — and whether a competent solicitor would have flagged it. Similarly, if a doctor failed to order a follow-up scan after identifying an abnormality, courts would consider how serious the potential harm was and what a reasonably careful practitioner would have done. Visit our breach of duty page for a detailed breakdown.
Even where a breach is established, you need to demonstrate that the professional’s conduct actually caused your loss. Section 5D of the Act applies the “but for” test: but for the professional’s breach, would the harm have occurred?
If the answer is yes — that you would have suffered the same loss regardless of what the professional did — causation may not be established. But in most professional negligence cases, this test works in the claimant’s favour: the loss is directly tied to what the professional failed to do.
The Act also introduces a scope-of-liability consideration. Courts must be satisfied that the harm falls within the scope of the professional’s responsibility — a nuanced area where specialist legal advice makes a real difference. See our causation page for a full explanation.
The Act also governs what compensation you can recover — and whether your own conduct might affect the amount.
Under sections 5R–5S, if you are found to have contributed to your own loss through carelessness, your damages may be reduced proportionately. This is known as contributory negligence. Crucially, it does not automatically extinguish your claim — it reduces the amount recovered, not your right to claim altogether. If a court finds you were 20% responsible for your own loss, you still recover 80% of your assessed damages.
Section 16 imposes a threshold on non-economic loss (pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life). A claimant must meet a minimum severity threshold before non-economic damages are awarded, and a cap applies to the maximum. For financial loss — which forms the bulk of most professional negligence claims — no such cap applies.
The Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) does not operate in isolation. Courts apply it alongside the professional standards and regulatory frameworks that govern each profession.
For solicitor negligence claims, the Act works alongside the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), which sets out the conduct obligations solicitors owe their clients. The Law Society of NSW and the Legal Services Commissioner have oversight of solicitor conduct, and evidence of a disciplinary finding or a breach of professional rules can be relevant to a civil negligence claim — though the two processes are separate.
For medical negligence claims, the Act is applied alongside the standards maintained by AHPRA (the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) and the relevant professional codes. Courts may consider clinical guidelines and professional consensus when determining whether a health practitioner’s conduct fell below the required standard.
For financial adviser negligence, ASIC’s licensing and conduct obligations are relevant context. Breaches of adviser duty under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) may run alongside a negligence claim under the Civil Liability Act.
⚠ Act before time runs out. In NSW, professional negligence claims must generally be commenced within 3 years of the date you became aware — or should reasonably have become aware — of the negligence, under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW). Missing this deadline can permanently extinguish your right to claim.
There is also a longstop period of 12 years from the date of the act or omission that caused the harm. After that point, no claim can be commenced regardless of when the harm was discovered.
One important nuance: latent damage — harm that was not immediately apparent — can affect when the limitation period starts running. If the negligence was concealed, or its effects only became apparent later, you may have more time than you think. The worst thing you can do is assume the window has closed without first getting advice.
If you believe you have a claim, here is a straightforward overview of what the process involves:
You do not need to understand every provision of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) to make a successful claim. That is our job. A specialist professional negligence lawyer will assess your situation against the legislative framework and advise whether you have grounds to proceed — and what your realistic prospects of recovery look like.
Ready to find out where you stand?
If a professional in NSW has caused you harm — financial, physical, or otherwise — the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) may provide the legal framework for your claim. Our specialist professional negligence lawyers assess NSW claims regularly and can advise whether you have grounds to proceed.
In most cases, yes. The Act is the primary legislation governing negligence in New South Wales and applies to the vast majority of professional negligence claims — including those against solicitors, doctors, accountants, financial advisers, and engineers. There are some limited exceptions: dust disease claims, for example, are governed by separate legislation. If you are unsure whether the Act applies to your situation, a free case evaluation will clarify your position.
Under section 5B of the Act, the standard is that of a reasonable person in the position of the professional. For specialists and licensed practitioners, this means being assessed against what a competent practitioner in the same field would have done in the same circumstances — not against perfection, but against a recognised professional benchmark.
Yes, in many cases. Under the Act’s contributory negligence provisions, a finding of partial fault reduces your damages proportionately — it does not wipe out your entitlement entirely. If you were found to be 30% responsible for the outcome, you could still recover 70% of your assessed losses. The specifics depend on the facts of your case.
It depends on the value and complexity of your claim. Smaller claims may be heard in the Local Court or District Court of NSW. For complex or high-value professional negligence matters, the Supreme Court of NSW is typically the appropriate forum. Our team will advise on the right court for your circumstances.
Yes. Solicitor negligence claims in NSW are assessed under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) alongside the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), which sets out the conduct obligations solicitors owe their clients. If your solicitor’s negligence caused you loss, you may have a claim under both frameworks. See our solicitor negligence claims page for more detail.
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