Login
Judge Salvatore Vasta wins immunity from civil suits
The High Court has decided whether Judge Salvatore Vasta should have judicial immunity from civil lawsuits after a lower court found he falsely imprisoned a man during a “parody” of a court hearing.
Naomi Neilson
In a landmark decision, the High Court of Australia has spared Judge Salvatore Vasta, the Commonwealth, and the state of Queensland from a $300,000 compensation order and a finding each was liable for the false imprisonment of a father on 6 December 2018.
In overturning the Federal Court’s August 2023 decision, the High Court unanimously found Judge Vasta was “immune from or [has] a defence to” civil suits arising out of facts done in exercise, or purported exercise, of his judicial function or capacity.
“Recourse against a wrongful act or omission by a judicial officer … in the performance or purported performance of a judicial function is to be found within such systems of appeals as might be applicable, such means of collateral challenge as might be available, and such process of discipline and removal from office,” the High Court said.
“It is not to be found in a civil suit against the judicial officer.”
It was the first time the High Court was required to address the scope of common law immunity of a judge in an inferior court.
The High Court said Justice Michael Wigney of the Federal Court was correct to label the 6 December 2018 hearing a “parody” and acknowledged the imprisonment of the father – known only as Mr Stradford – was distressing and plagued by acts of violence.
Judge Vasta imprisoned Stradford for contempt of court after he failed to produce some categories of documents, despite Stradford’s insistence he had provided as much as he was “physically able to”.
Stradford’s attempts to explain were dismissed as “rubbish”, and Judge Vasta told him he hoped he “brought his toothbrush”.
The imprisonment period was for 12 months, with an order that Stradford be released in May 2019 to serve out the balance on a suspended sentence. Instead, Stradford was released after six days.
Justice Wigney found that because of Judge Vasta’s status as a judge of an inferior court and the nature of his errors in making the imprisonment order, he was not protected by judicial immunity.
While there may be “differences of significance” between inferior and superior courts, the High Court determined there was “no justification for differentiating between the scope of the immunity from civil suit afforded to judges of all courts”.
“Despite the many and egregious errors in Judge Vasta’s treatment of Stradford, at all times Judge Vasta was acting in the purported exercise of the judicial function of a judge of the Federal Circuit Court.
“It follows that Judge Vasta’s actions were protected by judicial immunity. He is not liable to Stradford,” the High Court said.
In Justice Wigney’s decision, he rejected a contention from the Commonwealth and Queensland that they were not liable for Stradford’s imprisonment because the guards, police officers and correctional officers had acted pursuant to, or in accordance with, a warrant that appeared regular and valid on its face.
Given there was nothing on the face of the orders that suggested they were beyond power, the High Court overturned this decision, finding that neither was liable to Stradford for the false imprisonment.
The High Court was divided on the question of whether the order itself was valid, with the majority – Chief Justice Stephen Gageler and Justices Jacqueline Gleeson, Jayne Jagot and Robert Beech-Jones – finding the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act did not provide any party with a defence to Stradford’s claim in this respect.
While Justice James Edelman agreed with the majority’s findings in separate written reasons, Justice Michelle Gordon and Justice Simon Steward found the orders were valid until set aside.
The case is Commonwealth of Australia v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors; State of Queensland v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors; His Honour Judge Salvatore Paul Vasta v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors [2025] HCA 3.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
