Long-tail liability law reform is unnecessary and potentially damaging to Australia's business reputation, according to a group of governance experts.

Chartered Secretaries Australia (CSA), the national training body for governance professionals, says areas of law dealing with long-tail claims are robust enough to protect the interests of future claimants.

The Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee (CAMAC), the Federal Government's advisory panel on corporation and finance law, is examining how protection for creditors under the Corporations Act could be extended to those making an injury claim against a company.

A report released in July says future injury claims against companies could be classified under the same legal framework as creditors, but CSA argues there is no pressing case for heavy-handed reform.

"Any change to the law beyond extreme cases could potentially paralyse day-to-day company management and decision making," CEO Tim Sheehy said.

"Companies cannot be expected to sensibly provide for unidentified future claims when they are by their nature impossible to estimate because they are about claims that do not yet exist and claimants who may not yet be injured."

The CAMAC review into long-tail liability claims arose from the recent James Hardie case, in which hundreds of former employees made asbestos-related health claims against the company.

The James Hardie inquiry found in September 2004 that the laws did not make adequate provisions for commercial insolvency where there are substantial long-tail liabilities.

The inquiry also called for reform to avoid ad hoc solutions if another mass long-tail claim is made against a corporation.

But Mr Sheehy says if companies had to account for such imprecise risks, Australia's business environment could be undermined.