Standard of care · PI
The reasonable competence standard in UK PI claims
Reviewed by Matthew Bartlett, Director, Apex Insurance Brokers Limited (FCA FRN 724952) · Published 15 July 2026
UK professional negligence claims apply the 'reasonable competent professional' standard. Not perfection; not best practice; the reasonable competent standard for the discipline and role.
Where the standard comes from
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957): the 'ordinary skilled man' standard, applied to clinical negligence.
Bolitho v City & Hackney HA (1997): standard must be 'responsible, reasonable and logical'.
Applied across all UK professions — solicitors, accountants, architects, engineers, IFAs.
Consumer Duty (PRIN 2A) raises the bar in regulated financial services from 31 July 2023.
How courts assess it
- Expert evidence from experienced peers in the same discipline.
- Reference to industry standards, regulatory codes, professional guidance.
- Contemporaneous documentation of decisions.
- The 'body of responsible opinion' test.
- Time-context: applies the standard at the date of the advice, not today.
Common defences
- The advice met the reasonable competent standard at the time.
- A body of responsible peers would have advised similarly.
- The client contributed to the loss (contributory negligence).
- The loss was outside the scope of the duty (SAAMCO/Manchester Building Society).
- The claim is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980.
What professionals should do
- Document decisions and reasoning contemporaneously.
- Reference the regulatory or industry basis for advice.
- Follow scope-of-duty discipline — be clear what you're advising on.
- Preserve peer evidence where advice is contested.
- Update knowledge as the standard evolves.
Frequently asked
Does the reasonable competence standard mean best practice?
No. It's the reasonable competent standard — not best practice, not perfection.
How does Consumer Duty change this?
PRIN 2A raises the bar for regulated financial-services firms from 31 July 2023. The Bolam standard is a floor; Consumer Duty is higher.
What if a peer wouldn't have given the same advice?
The Bolam test requires a 'body of responsible opinion' — not unanimity.
Does regulatory guidance define the standard?
Regulatory codes usually inform the standard rather than define it. Non-compliance with a code is strong evidence but not conclusive.
What about novel work?
For work outside established practice, courts look at analogous disciplines and reasonable competent judgment applied to the novel context.
Does the client's sophistication matter?
Yes — the professional's duty to explain and warn scales with the client's ability to understand.
Related
Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Firm reference number 724952. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570.