A judge being sued for wrongfully jailing a father during divorce proceedings had engaged in six categories of misconduct, a court has been told.
"There could not be a worse case of denial of procedural fairness," barrister Perry Herzfeld SC said in his final address in the Federal Court on Monday.
His client, known by court pseudonym Mr Stradford, is suing Federal Circuit Court Judge Salvatore Vasta claiming he acted beyond his judicial power and is personally liable to pay damages.
The Brisbane father-of-two testified that spending six nights in custody in December 2018, left him with psychiatric injuries causing a multi-million dollar loss in past and future income.
He was jailed after tussling several times with Judge Vasta over his production of betting account documents to the court during divorce proceedings.
Judge Vasta mistakenly believed another judge had already found Mr Stradford was in contempt of court.
An appeal court later overturned the finding and sentence, describing the episode as "a gross miscarriage of justice".
Mr Herzfeld said the judge sentenced Mr Stradford to prison without first making a finding there had been a breach of any court orders.
He didn't follow the requirements of the relevant act which stated imprisonment was a measure of last resort and reasons had to be given if this was ordered.
"He didn't consider the alternatives to imprisonment mandated to be considered," the barrister said.
"There was a complete denial of procedural fairness."
Mr Stradford wasn't given an opportunity to put forward his case, with the judge repeatedly cutting him off and berating him.
"This misconduct is not explainable by the mistaken view that another judge had already found Mr Stradford was in contempt."
Judge Vasta also pre-judged the issue of whether Mr Stradford should be jailed, he said.
He cited statements including "I hope you brought your toothbrush" which he said showed the judge had already decided the only punishment was imprisonment.
Even acting on his mistaken view that Mr Stradford had already been found in contempt, he was obliged to consider options.
Mr Herzfeld also contended the judge acted for an improper purpose, earlier using the threat of imprisonment as pressure on Mr Stradford to settle the divorce case.
Judge Vasta's lawyer has characterised the error as a mistake within the realm of those overturned by appeal courts daily.
"He is a human being, he made a mistake," Jeremy Kirk SC said earlier.
"It was a mistake with significant consequences but it was a human mistake.""
The defence, which is yet to make final submissions, says Judge Vasta is not liable to be sued due to the doctrine of judicial immunity.
Mr Stradford has also made false imprisonment claims against the federal and Queensland governments which argue its officers were duty-bound to obey a judicial warrant.
The hearing continues before Justice Michael Wigney,
