Login
‘Inferior court’ label should be abolished, High Court says
For two High Court justices, a decision on a judge’s immunity made it clear it was time for Australia to move on from “old English labels”.
Naomi Neilson
In deciding which judges should be covered by judicial immunity in the event of a civil lawsuit, Justice James Edelman and Justice Simon Steward said it was time the terms “inferior court” and “superior court” were abolished, particularly given the standard of work in each.
An inferior court refers to courts below the Supreme Courts, but it also includes the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA).
For Judge Salvatore Vasta – who hand a hand in the wrongful imprisonment of a father – his status as an “inferior court” judge of the FCFCOA meant the Federal Court found he was not entitled to the judicial immunity that had been afforded to judges of a higher court.
This was reversed on appeal before the High Court, which found Judge Vasta was “immune from or [has] a defence to” the civil suit brought by the man, who spent six days behind bars on the invalid order.
“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.
In a decision published separately from the majority, Justice Edelman said the decision on appeal did not change because the FCFCOA “is described by old English labels, which should have been abolished long ago in Australia, of ‘inferior court’ or ‘superior court’”.
Justice Steward agreed with Justice Edelman that Australian law should “no longer recognise any distinction” between the two.
“Justice Edelman is correct to conclude that such a distinction is a historical anachronism,” Justice Steward said.
The High Court judge went on to explain the FCFCOA “decide cases of great complexity”, which is equal to those faced by the judges in the Federal Court of Australia and the former Family Court of Australia.
“The cases are resolved at a standard of judicial skill which is expected to be equivalent to that displayed by the judges of the Federal Court and the former Family Court,” Justice Steward added.
“Anyone reviewing the judgments of the Federal Circuit Court would see that this standard is ordinarily met.”
Judge Steward said given the skill level in the FCFCOA, it “makes no sense” to describe it as an “inferior court”.
The Vasta case is 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:
