The High Court of Australia is poised to determine whether judges be held personally liable for errors made during sentencing.

The decision stems from a high-profile case involving the wrongful imprisonment of a man entangled in a family property dispute, who successfully sued Federal Circuit Court Judge Salvatore Vasta in 2020.

The case centres around a 12-month jail sentence handed down by Judge Vasta for contempt of court. 

The man was jailed after allegedly failing to provide required financial documents, leading to a series of traumatic experiences during his detention, including assault and threats. 

His eventual release followed Judge Vasta's decision to stay the detention order, signalling, according to the man's lawyers, an acknowledgment of judicial error.

The Family Court later upheld the man's appeal, stating that Judge Vasta had acted wrongly. 

This ruling opened the door for the man to seek civil damages, resulting in an award of more than $300,000, including $50,000 from Judge Vasta for exemplary damages due to false imprisonment and deprivation of liberty.

The decision has sparked significant concern within the judicial community, where many fear that such rulings could expose judges to frequent lawsuits from dissatisfied litigants. 

In response to these concerns, the federal parliament amended the law on judicial immunity last year.

This week, Judge Vasta's legal team is arguing before the High Court that he should have been granted the same immunity from lawsuits that judges of higher courts enjoy. 

Their submission stresses that “the reasons for judicial immunity are the protection of judicial independence and finality” and argues that these reasons should apply equally to judges of both superior and inferior courts.

However, the case's complexity extends beyond the question of judicial immunity. 

The Commonwealth and Queensland governments, both defendants in the case, are also seeking to protect their interests. 

A critical point of contention is whether police and correctional officers can claim immunity when enforcing a court order that is later found to be invalid, provided that the order appeared valid at the time of execution.

The High Court's ruling is expected by the end of the week.