Judges Untouchable? High Court Solidifies Judicial Immunity in Landmark Ruling
In a groundbreaking decision, the High Court of Australia has established that all judges, regardless of court level, possess immunity from civil lawsuits arising from their judicial functions. This ruling came in the case of Queensland v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) [2025] HCA 3, overturning a $309,000 compensation award to a man wrongly imprisoned by Federal Circuit Court Judge Salvatore Vasta.
Background:
In April 2017, Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court against his then wife seeking property adjustment orders. During these proceedings, Judge Vasta made orders that Mr Stradford disclose certain documents by 26 November 2018 and threatened to imprison Mr Stradford if he did not produce documents sought.
On 6 December 2018, despite Mr Stradford’s insistence that he had provided all documents he was “physically able to,” Judge Vasta declared him in contempt and sentenced him to 12 months’ imprisonment commencing immediately, with partial suspension.
On February 15, 2019, the Full Court of the Family Court overturned Judge Vasta’s decision, citing a severe lack of procedural fairness and inadequate legal reasoning.
Consequently, Mr Stradford sued Judge Vasta, the Commonwealth and Queensland for false imprisonment. The primary judge’s ruling found Judge Vasta liable by denying him judicial immunity and held the Commonwealth and Queensland liable for damages despite their officers acting on an apparently valid warrant. All parties challenged these conclusions, with Queensland separately arguing their officers’ actions were lawful.
The High Court’s findings:
There were three main issues to be determined:
- Was the imprisonment order valid?
The Court affirmed the primary judge’s finding of jurisdictional errors and concluded that both the imprisonment order and warrant were invalid from the outset.
- Did Judge Vasta have immunity from Mr Stradford’s civil suit?
The High Court examined the scope of judicial immunity, particularly focusing on whether there should be a distinction between superior and inferior courts. The Court emphasised that judicial immunity is not for the personal benefit of judges, but “for the protection of judicial independence in the public interest.”[1]
The Court reviewed previous cases, including Sirros v Moore[2] and In re McC[3], which attempted to address the distinction between superior and inferior court judges. However, the Court found that these cases did not provide a satisfactory resolution, especially in the Australian context.
The Court rejected the approach of tying judicial immunity to jurisdictional error or subject matter jurisdiction, stating that such an approach would be inconsistent with the rationale for immunity. Instead, the Court held that the immunity should be “clearly defined and capable of summary application.”[4] The Court concluded that there should be no difference in the immunity afforded to judges of superior and inferior courts. It formulated the scope of immunity as follows:
“[T]he scope of the immunity as stated in Re East applies to judges of both superior and inferior courts, save that it should be expressed as immunity from actions arising out of acts done in the exercise, or purported exercise, of their judicial function or capacity.”[5]
This formulation ensures that the immunity extends to situations where a judge commits a jurisdictional error or the court ceases to have jurisdiction over a matter. Applying this principle to Judge Vasta’s case, the Court concluded:
“Despite the many and egregious errors in Judge Vasta’s treatment of Mr 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 Mr Stradford.”[6]
- Could the MSS Guards, the Queensland police officers and the Queensland correctional officers rely on the imprisonment order or the warrant?
As the Queensland police officers and Queensland correctional officers had a legal duty to enforce or execute orders and warrants issued by the Federal Circuit Court, and the MSS Guards were obliged to take Mr Stradford into custody, the Commonwealth and Queensland were not liable to Mr Stradford.
Implications of the Decision
This decision has far-reaching implications for the Australian legal system, reinforcing judicial independence while raising questions about accountability mechanisms for judicial misconduct. While acknowledging that this ruling may leave victims of judicial misconduct without direct monetary compensation through courts, the judges suggested that legislative schemes for ex gratia payments might be appropriate in such cases.
Follow this link to read the full judgement: https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2025/HCA/3
[1] Queensland v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) [2025] HCA 3, 23 [74].
[2] Sirros v Moore [1975] QB 118.
[3] In re McC (A Minor) [1985] AC 528.
[4] Queensland v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) [2025] HCA 3, 36 [109].
[5] Ibid 37 [112].
[6] Ibid 38 [114].
In a groundbreaking decision, the High Court of Australia has established that all judges, regardless of court level, possess immunity from civil lawsuits arising from their judicial functions. This ruling came in the case of Queensland v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) [2025] HCA 3 overturning a $309,000 compensation award to a man wrongly imprisoned by Federal Circuit Court.