High Court Registry closure

The High Court Registry will be closed from 4:00pm AEDT on Wednesday, 24 December 2025 and will re-open at 9:00am on Friday, 2 January 2026.

Any party seeking to file a document due to be filed between 25 December 2025 and 1 January 2026 has an automatic extension of time under the High Court Rules 2004 (Rule 4.01.5) until 4:00pm on Friday, 2 January 2026 to file the document. Any documents lodged between 25 December 2025 and 1 January 2026 will be reviewed on 2 January 2026.

All inquiries for the High Court will be considered when the Registry re-opens on Friday, 2 January 2026. If a matter is of extreme urgency, you may telephone 1800 570 566, select Option 1 and leave a voicemail. In addition, provide details by email to: registry@hcourt.gov.au.

Queensland v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym)
Commonwealth of Australia v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym)
His Honour Judge Vasta v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym)

[2025] HCA 3
Judgment date
Case number
S24/2024
C3/2024
C4/2024
Before
Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords

Constitutional law (Cth) – Chapter III court – Judicial immunity – Status of orders of Federal Circuit Court of Australia – Where judge of Federal Circuit Court of Australia ("Judge Vasta") declared Mr Stradford in contempt of disclosure orders ("contempt declaration") and sentenced Mr Stradford to imprisonment ("imprisonment order") – Where Mr Stradford was imprisoned by various agents, employees or contractors of the Commonwealth and Queensland acting in reliance upon imprisonment order – Where Full Court of Family Court of Australia set aside contempt declaration and imprisonment order due to lack of power to make the declaration and order and for failure to afford procedural fairness to Mr Stradford – Where primary judge in Federal Court of Australia found Judge Vasta liable to Mr Stradford for false imprisonment and Commonwealth and Queensland vicariously liable – Where primary judge held that imprisonment order and warrant of commitment were affected by jurisdictional error, invalid and of no legal effect – Where primary judge found Judge Vasta lost protection of judicial immunity from civil suit – Where primary judge did not accept that persons acting in reliance upon the imprisonment order and warrant of commitment were protected from liability for their actions in imprisoning Mr Stradford – Whether effect of s 17 of Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) was that contempt declaration and imprisonment order of Federal Circuit Court were valid unless and until set aside – Scope of common law immunity from civil suit arising out of acts done in exercise or purported exercise of judicial function or capacity – Whether persons acting in reliance upon imprisonment order and warrant of commitment liable to Mr Stradford despite acting pursuant to, or in accordance with, warrant of commitment which appeared regular on its face – Whether s 249 of Criminal Code (Qld) applied to warrant issued by Federal Circuit Court.

Words and phrases – "collateral challenge", "constables", "contempt", "correctional officers", "defence of justification", "gaolers", "inferior court", "judicial function", "judicial immunity", "judicial officer", "jurisdictional error", "justification", "ministerial officer", "officer of the court", "order", "police officers", "sheriff", "subject matter jurisdiction", "superior court", "superior court of record", "warrant".

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Pts XIIIA, XIIIB.

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) – s 17.

Criminal Code (Qld) – s 249.

Files
3.docx (241.34 KB)
3.pdf (1021.59 KB)