The High Court is set to release its judgment on immunity for a judge who has been held personally liable for wrongly jailing a man during a divorce case.
The Brisbane man, known by the pseudonym Mr Stradford, sued Federal Circuit Court Judge Salvatore Vasta, who had jailed him for contempt and was later awarded $309,000 compensation.
Judge Vasta’s lawyers argued in the High Court last August that an “inferior court” should be afforded no less judicial immunity than a superior court judge.
Immunity from civil liability was conferred by common law “for the protection of judicial independence in the public interest”.
But Mr Stradford’s lawyers said arguments against the judge’s liability meant “in cases of this kind, victims of even the most egregious torts should have no remedy”.
In the original case, in August 2018, Judge Vasta ordered Mr Stradford to disclose gambling account statements.
The proceedings were adjourned and, following a brief hearing before another judge, returned to Judge Vasta in December 2018.
Wrongly believing the other judge had already decided Mr Stradford was in contempt, Judge Vasta sentenced the father of two to six months’ jail for disobeying orders to provide financial documents.
Mr Stradford appealed and six days later, Judge Vasta conceded he had erred and ordered his immediate release.
In February 2019, the Full Court of the Family Court overturned the sentence.
Mr Stradford successfully sued Judge Vasta for false imprisonment.
In an August 2023 judgment, Federal Court Justice Michael Wigney awarded compensation including $50,000 in exemplary damages payable by Judge Vasta “to deter any repetition of such a thoroughly unacceptable abuse of judicial power”.
Justice Wigney also found the Commonwealth and Queensland to be vicariously liable for court, police and correctional officers following Judge Vasta’s orders.
The Commonwealth and state of Queensland joined Judge Vasta in appealing that judgment to the High Court.
This post was originally published on Michael West.