Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020

Federal Court of Australia Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020 File number: ACD 57 of 2020

Judgment of: WIGNEY J

Date of judgment: 30 August 2023

Catchwords: TORTS – false imprisonment – where applicant imprisoned for contempt in matrimonial proceeding in Federal Circuit Court of Australia for purported non-compliance with disclosure orders – where judge's contempt declaration and imprisonment orders were set aside for invalidity – consideration of whether imprisonment order was valid until set aside and provided lawful justification for imprisonment – consideration of whether the judge exercised superior court powers to punish for contempt which meant orders remained valid until set aside – found that judge's orders, being of an inferior court and vitiated by jurisdictional error, were void ab initio and of no legal effect – found that no lawful justification for imprisonment TORTS – collateral abuse of process – whether the judge had an improper purpose or motive to coerce settlement of matrimonial proceeding – found it was not established that the judge's purpose in making the contempt declaration and imprisonment order was other than to punish for non-compliance with court order – found that it was not established that the judge's predominant purpose was "improper" – found that tort not made out TORTS – judicial immunity – whether common law judicial immunity protected inferior court judge from liability for tort of false imprisonment – consideration of scope of common law judicial immunity afforded to inferior court judges – consideration of circumstances where inferior court judges may lose that immunity – consideration of whether common law distinction between immunity of superior and inferior court judges remains in place – where judge made orders for which there was no proper foundation in law and was guilty of a gross irregularity of procedure and denial of procedural fairness – found that the judge lost the protection of judicial immunity afforded to inferior court judges because he acted without or in excess of jurisdiction TORTS – justification defence – whether security, police and prison officers protected from liability in tort by common law justification defence when acting pursuant to an order or warrant made by an inferior court judge which was void ab initio but appeared regular on its face when executed – held that no such defence available at common law in respect of orders or warrants issued by inferior court judges – found that defence is only available to officers of the court or "ministerial officers" who are bound by a duty to the court to obey a warrant issued by the court which appeared regular on its face STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – whether s 249 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) applies in the case of warrants issued by a federal court – whether Federal Circuit Court of Australia is "any court" under s 249 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) – whether s 35 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) applies to the interpretation of s 249 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) – found that s 35 does apply and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia is not a court "in and for" or "in and of" Queensland – found that defence not available DAMAGES – claim for general, aggravated and exemplary damages for false imprisonment and deprivation of liberty – imprisonment of seven days in watch house and prison – consideration of principles that apply in assessing general, aggravated and exemplary damages for false imprisonment and deprivation of liberty – found that unlawful imprisonment of applicant warranted award of general damages – found that duration, nature and circumstances of imprisonment and hurt to feelings suffered by applicant warranted award of aggravated damages – found that judge's reckless disregard of applicant's rights and the rule of law warranted award of exemplary damages DAMAGES – claim for general damages for personal injury – where applicant suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of false imprisonment – award of damages assessed pursuant to Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) and Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld) which require consideration of impairment caused by psychiatric injury – consideration of expert evidence regarding impairment – consideration of material non-disclosures by applicant regarding pre-existing conditions – found that award of general damages for a moderate mental disorder was warranted DAMAGES – claim for damages for loss of earning capacity – consideration of principles applicable to compensation for loss of earning capacity – found that some diminuation to earning capacity resulted from psychiatric injury – found that no substantial financial loss established but that psychiatric injury may cause future financial loss – found that modest award of damages for loss of earning capacity warranted