Judge Salvatore Vasta is accused of acting beyond his judicial power when jailing the father of two in December 2018 for a minimum of six months for not obeying orders to provide financial documents.
The sentence, overturned and strongly criticised by an appeal court, wasn't preceded by a finding of contempt or an opportunity for the Brisbane man to put on evidence.
The man, known by court pseudonym Mr Stradford, was released after six nights.
Part of Mr Stradford's claim alleges the judge acted for an improper purpose, earlier using the threat of imprisonment as pressure on him to settle the property case with his estranged wife.
That was rejected by the judge's lawyer, who said the case was a world away from one where a litigant launches a case with a collateral purpose.
The Stradfords' case was referred back to Judge Vasta, he'd wrongly believed a contempt finding had been made and he gave the parties an opportunity to discuss the case, Jeremy Kirk SC said in his final address in the Federal Court on Tuesday.
"Judge Vasta was plainly exasperated by what he saw was a lack of compliance," Mr Kirk told Justice Michael Wigney.
He said the judge, perhaps to a fault, appeared concerned with ensuring justice was being done to Mrs Stradford, who'd sought the financial documents.
"He had nothing to gain one way or the other," Mr Kirk said.
"There was no purpose he could achieve for himself ... as it turns out, he didn't deal with it well - but not for some collateral or improper purpose."
While Judge Vasta accepts he made mistakes with significant consequences, it was within his powers to imprison Mr Stradford and there was no allegation his client acted in bad faith or had anything against the jailed man, Mr Kirk said.
The case turns on whether the judge's actions were so grave that judicial immunity no longer applies.
Noting "if I really muck up, Judge Vasta can't sue me," Mr Kirk said barristers, tax officers, registrars, engineers and architects have immunity from civil claims when exercising certain functions.
To say a builder had immunity but not a judge of the Federal Circuit Court "would be ludicrous", he submitted.
Mr Stradford's claim for more than $2 million in damages is based on psychiatric injuries he says left him unable to work full-time.
The Commonwealth, which along with Queensland is defending a false imprisonment claim, pushed against a claim for future medical expenses, pointing to testimony Mr Stradford didn't think much of psychologists.
"He can't be compensated for costs he's not going to incur," barrister David Hume said in his final address on Tuesday.
Mr Stradford's barrister on Monday said Judge Vasta completely denied the man procedural fairness, including by failing to follow the relevant law describing jail as a last resort.
"There could not be a worse case of denial of procedural fairness," barrister Perry Herzfeld SC said in his final address.
The hearing resumes on Wednesday.
13°C