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
GUIDES - Standard of Care
When something goes wrong with a professional — your doctor, your solicitor, your financial adviser — the first question most people ask is: did they do something wrong, or did I just get an unlucky outcome?
That question sits at the heart of what lawyers call standard of care. It is the legal measure of how a professional was required to act — and whether they fell short of it. If they did, and that failure caused you real harm, you may have grounds for a professional negligence claim.
This guide explains what standard of care means in Australian law, how courts assess it across different professions, and what your options are if you believe a professional has let you down.
✔ No Win No Fee ✔ Free Evaluation ✔ Confidential ✔ Australia-Wide
Standard of care is the level of skill, competence, and diligence that a reasonable professional in the same field would be expected to apply in the same circumstances. It is not a standard of perfection — professionals are human and outcomes are not always predictable. It is the standard of a reasonably competent peer: someone with equivalent training, experience, and responsibilities, doing their job properly.
Standard of care is one of the foundational concepts in Australian negligence law. It draws from decades of common law development and, more recently, from the Civil Liability Acts enacted across most states and territories.
The most significant case shaping how Australian courts assess standard of care is Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479. The High Court of Australia held that the standard of care for medical professionals is not determined solely by what the medical profession itself considers acceptable practice. A practice that is widely followed by qualified professionals can still fall below the required standard if it is not reasonably defensible. This means that “everyone does it this way” is not a complete answer to a negligence claim.
The Civil Liability Acts across Australian states and territories give legislative structure to how courts weigh breach of duty. They introduce factors like the probability of harm, the likely seriousness of that harm, the burden of taking precautions, and the social utility of the professional’s conduct. These acts vary by state, and the legislation that applies to your claim will depend on where the negligence occurred.
At the core of any assessment is a single question: what would a reasonably competent professional with the same qualifications, in the same field, have done in this situation? Not what the best in their field would have done — what a competent, careful professional would have done.
Courts and tribunals do not assess standard of care in a vacuum. They look at the specific facts of what happened, the professional’s field and level of specialisation, and what was known — or should have been known — at the time.
Key factors considered include:
The professional’s field and specialisation — a general practitioner is assessed against what a competent GP would do, not against what a specialist would do, unless a referral to that specialist was itself part of the required standard
The circumstances at the time — an emergency presentation is assessed differently from a routine elective procedure where the professional had time and resources to exercise full care
What was reasonably foreseeable — courts do not apply hindsight. The question is what the professional knew, or ought to have known, when they made the decision
Departure from accepted guidelines or protocols — deviation from established professional guidelines is a strong indicator that the standard was not met
Expert evidence — in most professional negligence cases, the court will hear from qualified experts in the same field who give their opinion on whether the conduct fell below the required standard
Following Rogers v Whitaker, Australian courts retain the authority to find that a professional practice — even one endorsed by professional bodies — does not meet the required standard if it cannot be justified on rational grounds. This matters for claimants, because it means a professional cannot simply point to widespread industry practice as a complete defence.
Standard of care applies wherever a qualified professional owes an obligation to a client or patient. The specific benchmark varies by profession, but the underlying question is always the same.
A doctor, surgeon, or specialist must exercise the level of care and skill expected of a competent practitioner in their field. Since Rogers v Whitaker, a medical professional must also proactively warn patients of material risks — risks that a reasonable patient would want to know about before making a decision. A failure to disclose a significant risk, even if common practice among peers, may constitute a breach. If a misdiagnosis, surgical error, or failure to warn has caused you harm, see our guide to medical negligence claims Australia.
Legal professionals are required to apply the skill and diligence expected of a competent practitioner in their area of law. Missing a limitation period and losing a client’s right to sue — entirely preventable with proper diary management and file oversight — is one of the clearest examples of a breach. So is failing to advise a client about a critical clause in a contract before they sign it, or mishandling a conveyancing matter that costs them their property. See our guide to solicitor negligence claims.
Financial advisers in Australia are licensed and regulated by ASIC and must meet obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), including the requirement to provide advice appropriate to the client’s circumstances. Recommending a high-risk investment to someone who has clearly expressed a conservative risk profile — without properly assessing their financial situation, goals, and needs — is a textbook breach of the required standard.
Accountants and tax agents owe a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in handling a client’s financial affairs. Failing to lodge a return on time, applying an incorrect tax treatment to a capital gains event, or missing a deadline that triggers ATO penalties the client would otherwise have avoided — these are failures that a competent, careful accountant would not make.
A structural engineer, certifier, or building consultant who signs off on a design or inspection without identifying a defect that a competent professional exercising reasonable skill would have found — and that defect causes structural failure or financial loss — has fallen below the required standard. These claims often involve significant property damage and can be complex, but they follow the same legal framework.
Proving a breach of standard of care is essential — but it is one of four elements that must be established to succeed in a professional negligence claim.
Standard of care sits at element two. Even where a professional clearly did something wrong, a claim will only succeed if that failure is what caused your loss. For a detailed explanation of the other elements, see our guides on duty of care in professional negligence and causation in negligence claims.
These misunderstandings are worth addressing directly, because they lead some people to walk away from valid claims — and occasionally to pursue claims that are unlikely to succeed.
“A bad outcome means the professional was negligent.” It does not. A surgeon can perform a procedure with complete technical competence and still have a patient suffer a serious complication. The standard of care is about the quality of the professional’s conduct — not the result.
“If they followed standard practice, I have no claim.” Standard practice is relevant and courts take it seriously, but following it does not automatically provide a complete defence under Australian law. If the accepted practice is not reasonably defensible, a court may still find a breach.
“I needed to complain to the regulator first.” A complaint to AHPRA, the Law Society, or ASIC and a civil negligence claim are entirely separate processes. The outcome of one does not determine the other, and you do not need to pursue one before the other.
“It has been too long — I’ve missed my chance.” Limitation periods are more nuanced than many people realise. In most Australian states, the clock runs from when you became aware of the negligence, not simply from when it occurred. Do not assume the window has closed without first getting an assessment.
Limitation periods for professional negligence claims are set by state and territory legislation and vary across Australia. The general starting point in most jurisdictions is three years from the date you became aware — or should reasonably have become aware — of the negligence, but each state applies its own rules, with variations in long-stop periods and specific provisions for personal injury claims.
The safest course is always to act as soon as you suspect something may have gone wrong. Delay carries real risk — not just to your limitation period, but to the availability of evidence, witness recollection, and documentation.
Act before time runs out. Professional negligence limitation periods in Australia are generally 3 years from the date you became aware — or should reasonably have become aware — of the negligence, though this varies by state. Missing this deadline can permanently extinguish your right to claim. If you are unsure whether your limitation period is still open, contact our team for a free assessment as soon as possible.
If you have read this far, there is a reasonable chance you are trying to work out whether what happened to you crossed a legal line. That is not always easy to determine on your own — and you should not have to.
Fair Go Australia’s specialist professional negligence lawyers can assess whether the professional’s conduct may have fallen below the required standard of care, whether you have a viable claim, and what your options are. There is no obligation to proceed — a free case evaluation is exactly that.
We respond within 1 business day · No obligation · Completely confidential
Standard of care is the benchmark of skill, care, and competence that a professional in a given field is legally required to meet. It reflects what a reasonably competent professional with equivalent training and experience would have done in the same circumstances. It is not a standard of perfection, but it is a genuine and enforceable obligation — and falling short of it can give rise to a negligence claim.
Courts weigh the specific facts of the situation against expert evidence about what a competent professional in the same field would have done. They consider the professional’s area of specialisation, the circumstances they were working in, what was reasonably foreseeable at the time, and whether they departed from accepted professional guidelines. Following Rogers v Whitaker, courts are not bound to accept that widespread professional practice necessarily meets the required standard.
No. An unfortunate or even catastrophic outcome does not, on its own, mean that a professional was negligent. Medicine, law, and financial advice all involve genuine uncertainty and risk. The question is whether the professional’s conduct — the decisions they made, the steps they took or failed to take — met the standard of a reasonably competent peer. A poor result that flows from proper professional conduct is not a negligence claim.
Yes. Regulatory investigations and civil negligence claims operate on different standards and serve different purposes. A regulator assesses whether a professional’s conduct warrants disciplinary action under their professional rules. A court assesses whether that conduct caused you loss and whether you are entitled to compensation. A finding of no misconduct by a regulator does not prevent you from pursuing a civil claim, and the reverse is equally true.
It applies to any professional who holds themselves out as having a particular skill or expertise and who takes on a client or patient in that capacity. This includes doctors, surgeons, specialists, solicitors, barristers, financial advisers, accountants, engineers, architects, and other licensed or registered professionals. The specific benchmark differs by profession, but the legal obligation exists across all of them.
That assessment depends on the specific facts of your situation — what the professional did or failed to do, what the expected standard in their field required, and whether their conduct caused your loss. It is not something that can be determined from a general guide alone. Fair Go Australia offers a free case evaluation with no obligation to proceed — it is the most direct way to understand where you stand.
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