A judge who was ordered to pay compensation after being held personally liable for wrongly jailing a man during a divorce case is off the hook after a landmark High Court ruling.
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.
In a decision written by Chief Justice Stephen Gageler, and Justices Jayne Jagot, Jacqueline Gleeson and Robert Beech-Jones, the High Court allowed appeals by Judge Vasta, the Commonwealth and Queensland.
On the issue of the scope of immunity from, or defence to, civil suit for judges of the Federal Circuit Court, the High Court ruled that common law affords the same immunity to judges of inferior courts as it does to judges of superior courts.
"Under that common law, judges of Australian courts … are immune from civil suit arising out of acts done in the exercise, or purported exercise, of their judicial function or capacity," the High Court judges said in the judgment released on Wednesday.
"As Judge Vasta purported to perform such a function in convicting and sentencing Mr Stradford, he was not liable to Mr Stradford for false imprisonment."
However, the judges found that "the effect of this absolute immunity may be such that a victim of unjust treatment by a judicial officer will be left with no means of obtaining monetary compensation through the courts".
"If that is so, and the unjust treatment has caused harm to the victim, it may be that one or other of the legislative schemes for the making of an ex gratia or 'act of grace' payment may compensate the victim."
The judges noted that Mr Stradford's time in custody was "distressing".
"He witnessed and was subjected to acts of violence. He experienced suicidal thoughts," they wrote.
In a statement released by his lawyers, Mr Stradford said: "While respecting the High Court has decided to change the common law of Australia to protect all judges ... I feel it is a dark day for people like me who suffer as a result of the many and egregious acts of a judge, who then enjoys absolute immunity from any consequences."
In the original case in 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.
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.
The Full Court of the Family Court overturned the sentence and Mr Stradford sued Judge Vasta for false imprisonment.
In the Federal Court in 2023, 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.
Judge Vasta could not claim judicial immunity, he ruled, because there was no such protection for "inferior" (lower) courts.
In allowing the appeals, the High Court set aside Justice Wigney's decision and dismissed Mr Stradford's proceedings.
Following Justice Wigney's compensation order, parliament passed the Federal Courts Legislation (Judicial Immunity) Act, which gave immunity to "division two" judges of the Federal Circuit and Family Court.
The government said the bill would ensure that the risk of vexatious litigation aimed at these judges by people dissatisfied with the outcomes of their decisions is minimised.
