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
Legal Doctrine · Reasonable Professional Standard
When you place your trust in a professional — a doctor, a lawyer, a financial adviser, an engineer — there is an expectation built into that relationship. Not that they will be perfect. Not that they will be the best in their field. But that they will bring the competence and care that the role genuinely demands.
When something goes wrong and you’re left asking whether the professional you relied on fell short of that expectation, Australian law has a precise answer: what standard were they actually required to meet? This page explains that standard, how courts apply it, and what it means if you believe a professional failed to reach it.
Legal Concept
The standard sits at the core of every professional negligence claim. It is the line between an unfortunate outcome and a compensable one.
Australian courts apply this test under both common law principles and the Civil Liability Acts across each state and territory — the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), the Wrongs Act 1958 (VIC), the Civil Liability Act 2003 (QLD), and their equivalents in other states. The statutory framework varies slightly by jurisdiction, but the underlying standard is consistent: reasonable competence in the circumstances.
Application
In most states, the Civil Liability Acts allow a professional to argue that their conduct was widely accepted as competent professional practice by a significant number of practitioners in the field. This is sometimes called the “peer professional opinion” defence.
But it is not a blanket shield. The legislation is clear: a court is not bound to find that a professional’s conduct met the standard merely because a body of peers would have acted the same way. If the court considers the opinion unreasonable, the defence fails. This is one of the most significant ways Australian law differs from the English Bolam test — and it matters.
Establishing the standard in court almost always involves expert evidence. A practitioner from the same field — and, where relevant, the same specialty — will give evidence about what a competent professional would have done. The court weighs that evidence, alongside the facts, to determine whether the standard was met.
Not every mistake is negligence. Professionals make judgment calls — sometimes under time pressure, sometimes with incomplete information. An error of judgment does not automatically constitute a breach of the standard. The question is whether the error was one that a reasonably competent practitioner would not have made.
The test is always applied at the time of the conduct — not with the benefit of hindsight.
By Profession
A solicitor is held to the standard of a reasonably competent legal practitioner — advising clearly on legal risk, meeting court deadlines, avoiding conflicts of interest, and acting in the client’s best interests. Missing a limitation period or failing to advise on a significant risk are among the most common ways solicitors fall short of that standard.
The High Court’s decision in Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 established that a doctor must warn a patient of any material risk inherent in a proposed treatment — a risk the patient would consider significant, or one the doctor knows or ought to know the patient would find material. The standard is not set by what other doctors typically tell their patients.
Financial advisers are held to the standard of a competent adviser who acts in the client’s best interests under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Advice must suit the client’s actual financial situation, objectives, and risk tolerance. Unsuitable product recommendations or undisclosed conflicts of interest may not meet the standard.
An accountant must meet the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner in their specialty — whether tax, audit, or business advisory. Errors in lodgements, failure to advise on tax obligations, or inaccurate financial reporting that causes measurable loss can each raise a question about whether the standard was reached.
Design professionals are held to the standard of a competent practitioner in their discipline — including compliance with applicable codes and standards, accurate specification and design documentation, and appropriate professional judgment in identifying and managing risk.
Case Law
Rogers v Whitaker
(1992) 175 CLR 479 · High Court of Australia
This decision is one of the most significant professional negligence cases in Australian legal history. The Court explicitly rejected the English Bolam test. Rather than deferring to what a body of medical practitioners would have done, Australian courts must make their own assessment of what a reasonable professional would have done. A surgeon failed to warn a patient of a small risk of sympathetic ophthalmia — which ultimately caused the patient to lose sight in her previously good eye. The case reshaped professional negligence law in Australia and remains the foundational authority on the reasonable professional standard.
Rosenberg v Percival
(2001) 205 CLR 434 · High Court of Australia
This case applied the principles from Rogers v Whitaker in the post-legislative reform environment, examining the intersection of the disclosure standard with causation. A patient claimed she was not warned of the risk of temporomandibular joint injury following jaw surgery. The Court’s analysis of what a reasonable patient would have done with adequate disclosure made this case important for understanding how breach of the professional standard interacts with the causation requirement.
Naxakis v Western General Hospital
(1999) 197 CLR 269 · High Court of Australia
A case involving the standard of care required in clinical diagnosis. The plaintiff presented with a severe headache and was discharged without investigation for a subarachnoid haemorrhage. He later suffered a second bleed with catastrophic consequences. The High Court examined what a reasonably competent clinician would have done in the circumstances — and the case has become an important reference point for the diagnostic standard of care in medical negligence claims.
Your Claim
If you are considering a professional negligence claim, understanding this standard is the starting point — but not the finishing point.
To establish a claim, it is generally not enough to show that things went wrong, or that you are unhappy with the outcome. What you need to demonstrate — with the support of expert evidence — is that the professional’s conduct fell below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner in their field, and that this failure caused your loss.
That distinction matters. A professional can be highly competent overall and still be negligent in a specific act or omission. A specialist may be held to a higher standard than a generalist in the same broad profession. And the assessment is always made at the time of the conduct — not with the clarity of hindsight.
Whether a breach can be established, and whether it caused the loss you have suffered, are questions that need experienced professional negligence lawyers to assess properly. If you believe a professional fell short of the standard they owed you — and that failure caused you real harm — it is worth having your situation reviewed.
Get Advice
Assessing whether a professional’s conduct fell below the reasonable standard requires expertise in the specific field and a thorough understanding of how courts approach the question. Fair Go Australia’s specialist team can review your circumstances and give you an honest assessment of whether there may be a claim worth pursuing.
Frequently Asked Questions
No — and the distinction is important. The English Bolam test holds that a professional is not negligent if their conduct accords with a practice accepted by a responsible body of practitioners. Australian courts rejected that approach in Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479. In Australia, courts conduct their own independent assessment of what a reasonable practitioner would have done. Evidence that a body of peers would have acted the same way is relevant — but it is not conclusive. The court is not bound to accept it if it considers the practice unreasonable.
No. The standard is reasonable competence, not perfection. Professionals are expected to make difficult decisions, sometimes under pressure and with incomplete information. An error of judgment does not automatically constitute negligence. The question is whether the conduct fell below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner in the same field — not whether a different outcome was possible.
Ordinarily through expert evidence. A practitioner with relevant qualifications in the same field will give evidence about what a competent professional would have done in the circumstances. The court weighs that evidence alongside the facts to determine whether the standard was met. In some cases, both sides call experts and the court must resolve the competing views.
Yes. A general practitioner is held to the standard of a reasonably competent GP — not a specialist. A specialist is held to the standard of a competent practitioner in their specialty. Similarly, a junior solicitor is assessed differently from a senior barrister advising on complex commercial litigation. The applicable standard always reflects the role, level of experience represented, and the specific context of the conduct.
Yes, in some circumstances. Following accepted practice is relevant and may support a professional’s defence, but it is not automatically a complete answer. Australian courts are not bound to accept that widespread practice meets the required standard. If the court considers that the accepted practice itself falls below what reasonable care requires, a professional who followed it may still be found negligent.
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