Reasonably practicable
A legal test for how far a duty holder must go in controlling risk. The test is not identical across frameworks and the cost-benefit weighing differs.
The same term carries different legal meaning across frameworks. Read each jurisdiction entry carefully.
Also known as
By jurisdiction
UK HSE
“so far as is reasonably practicable”SFAIRPExact equivalentA qualified form of duty in which the burden of reducing a risk must be weighed against the sacrifice, in time, trouble and money, needed to avert it. If the risk is grossly disproportionate to the sacrifice, the duty is satisfied. This gross-disproportion test derives from Edwards v National Coal Board [1949].
Irish HSA
“so far as is reasonably practicable”Close equivalentThe Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 uses reasonably practicable as a limitation on duties, particularly in section 8 (employers) and section 13 (employees). The Act does not codify the UK gross-disproportion test. Irish interpretation draws on the Act and related case law.
US OSHA
“feasible”Partial equivalentOSHA does not use a general reasonably practicable test. The General Duty Clause (section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act 1970) requires abatement of recognised hazards causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm. Individual standards use feasible to qualify engineering and administrative controls.
Note: Do not treat feasible (OSHA) as a synonym without the difference note.
Practitioner note: Reasonably practicable weighs cost of control against level of risk. ALARP is the same concept applied specifically in the major-hazard and nuclear sectors. The OSHA equivalent — the recognised hazard test in the General Duty Clause — has a different legal structure.