---
title: "Screen the expert against section 59, which uses the words in Australia"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/health-and-medical-law/screen-a-proposed-liability-expert-against-the-peer-the-section-describe/victoria"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A32-MN20261023-4-VIC"
practice_area: "Health & Medical Law"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["VIC"]
last_reviewed: "2026-10-25"
---

# Screen the expert against section 59, which uses the words in Australia

> From the proposed expert's field, the year of the treatment, and the field of the practitioner whose care is in issue, make a table against the peer words in section 59.…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/health-and-medical-law/screen-a-proposed-liability-expert-against-the-peer-the-section-describe/victoria  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-25

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Health & Medical Law](https://ailawframework.com/practice/health-and-medical-law.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | From the proposed expert's field, the year of the treatment, and the field of the practitioner whose care is in issue, make a table against the peer words in section 59. Do not decide that the opinion would be widely accepted or unreasonable. Do not draft the report. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer decides whether the proposed expert is a peer. The table does not decide the opinion. Keep the words in Australia and a significant number of respected practitioners. Keep health and wage records in a firm-controlled tool, not a public one. ASCR r 9 and APP 11 apply. Decide if a breach is notifiable under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). |
| Written for | Victoria |
| Applies to | [Screen a proposed liability expert against the peer the section describes](https://ailawframework.com/practice/health-and-medical-law/screen-a-proposed-liability-expert-against-the-peer-the-section-describe.md) |

## Checking plan

**Verify against sources**

Section 59 asks whether the professional acted in a manner widely accepted in Australia by a significant number of respected practitioners in the field as competent professional practice. Peer opinion cannot be relied on if the court determines it is unreasonable.

- What the AI does: From the proposed expert's field, the year of the treatment, and the field of the practitioner whose care is in issue, make a table against the peer words in section 59. Do not decide that the opinion would be widely accepted or unreasonable. Do not draft the report.
- What the lawyer does: Make the legal assessment, check the source material and authorise the output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Lawyer competent in this practice area
- Basis: Checked against the linked sources on 23 October 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Match the proposed field to the field of the practitioner whose care is in issue, at the time the service was provided.
2. Record the words: widely accepted in Australia by a significant number of respected practitioners in the field as competent professional practice.
3. Record that the opinion need not be universal, that differing opinions may be relied on, and that it cannot be relied on if the court determines it is unreasonable.
4. If the court determines the opinion unreasonable, section 59(5) requires written reasons, except where a jury determines the matter under section 59(6). The table does not make that determination.

## Notes

- Practice Note SC Gen 25 says particular caution is required if AI is used to assist in preparing an expert report, and that the report must comply with the relevant code of conduct or practice note. The table does not draft the report.
- If this is filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Practice Note SC Gen 25, issued on 14 May 2026, calls for particular caution with affidavit material and expert reports, and says confidential information should not go into a public AI tool.

## Practical guide

Jurisdiction: Victoria. A screen of a proposed liability expert against section 59.

**Deliverable**: A screening table against the peer words in section 59, before the expert is instructed.

**Inputs**

- The proposed expert's field
- The year of the treatment
- The field of the practitioner whose care is in issue

**Example**: Illustrative example: The practitioner is an orthopaedic surgeon and the proposal is a general physician. The table records the two fields against the words in Australia and a significant number of respected practitioners. It does not decide that the opinion would be unreasonable.

**Stop and escalate when**

- The tool is asked to decide that the opinion would be widely accepted or unreasonable.
- The tool is asked to draft the report.

Checked 2026-10-23.

## Sources

- [Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) section 59](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/wa1958111/s59.html) (checked 2026-10-23)
- [Supreme Court of Victoria Practice Note SC Gen 25](https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/areas/legal-resources/practice-notes/sc-gen-25-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence-by-court-users) (checked 2026-10-23)

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*