A judge claims a court was wrong to find that judicial immunity did not shield him from being sued by a man left traumatised after being wrongfully jailed during divorce proceedings.
In a landmark judgment delivered in August, the Federal Court found Judge Salvatore Vasta was liable to personally pay part of $300,000 in compensation to the Brisbane man, known only by the pseudonym Mr Stradford.
The Commonwealth of Australia and the state of Queensland were also found to be vicariously liable to pay for the imprisonment due to actions taken by court, police and correctional officers in following Judge Vasta's orders.
The judge and the federal and state governments have since appealed the decision, arguing Federal Court justice Michael Wigney erred when ordering the three parties jointly pay Mr Stradford compensation.
In his appeal, Judge Vasta argued he could not be sued because he was "invested with the judicial power of the Commonwealth".
He said that Justice Wigney erred when finding that the orders imprisoning the Brisbane man were invalid before they were later set aside.
Judge Vasta also argued that, as a member of the Federal Circuit Court bench, he had the same immunity as a judge of a superior court and that Mr Stradford's lawsuit should be dismissed.
In its appeal, the Queensland government said it should not be liable to pay compensation for following orders and a warrant that "appeared to be lawful on their face".
The Commonwealth has brought up constitutional grounds for challenging the appeal and argued court security officers were simply following orders that were "apparently valid" under a direction from Judge Vasta.
Mr Stradford, a father of two, was jailed in December 2018 for a minimum of six months for not obeying orders to provide financial documents during divorce proceedings.
The sentence was overturned and the man released after six nights when the decision to jail him was strongly criticised by an appeals court.
In August, Justice Wigney found Judge Vasta made "a number of fundamental and egregious errors" in jailing Mr Stradford for contempt without first finding that he had failed to comply with the court's orders.
"The applicant in this proceeding was the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice," Justice Wigney said.
"He was detained and imprisoned for contempt following what could fairly be described as little more than a parody of a court hearing."
The August judgment was the first in almost 60 years in which a judge was found personally liable to pay damages.
A date for the appeal hearing has not yet been scheduled.
