Skip to main content
Legal & regulatory

Reasonably practicable

Reasonably practicable is the qualifier on almost every WHS duty: it means doing what can reasonably be done in the circumstances, having regard to the likelihood of harm, the degree of harm, what is known about the hazard, the availability and suitability of controls, and the cost of controls. Cost is always the last factor.

Legal context

Section 18 of the model WHS Act defines "reasonably practicable" using a five-factor test: (a) the likelihood of the hazard or risk occurring; (b) the degree of harm that might result; (c) what the person concerned knows or ought reasonably to know about the hazard / risk and ways of eliminating or minimising it; (d) the availability and suitability of ways to eliminate or minimise the risk; and (e) only after assessing (a)–(d), the cost associated with available ways of eliminating or minimising the risk. Cost can only justify not implementing a control where the cost is grossly disproportionate to the risk — the threshold is high. The test is what a reasonable person in the duty-holder's position would do, knowing what they ought reasonably to know.

Practical use

Practically, this means risk assessments need to demonstrate the (a)–(d) reasoning before any (e) cost consideration. A risk assessment that says "we considered Control X but it was too expensive" without the prior four-factor reasoning is not a defensible record.

Common questions

Does cost ever justify not implementing a control?

Only when the cost is grossly disproportionate to the risk — a high threshold. The factor is the last consideration after likelihood, degree of harm, knowledge, and the availability and suitability of controls have been weighed.

Browse the full glossary.

47 WHS and HSWA terms with legal context, FAQs and regulator references.