In an unrelated case, the Federal Court this month gave a self-represented man in a workplace dispute leave to appeal against a preliminary order of Judge Vasta after the court heard the man was removed by security from the judge's courtroom for failing to answer a question. The man has been involved in a range of cases in the past with a number of parties, before a range of judges and registrars. "Answer my question or I will have you removed," Judge Vasta said at the end of a protracted and heated discussion about the man's application for an order that his employer hand over certain documents. "I’m a self-represented applicant, your Honour," the man said. "Okay. Remove – please remove Mr [Michael] Gambaro from my court room because he is refusing to answer the questions of the court. Leave," Judge Vasta replied.

Earlier, Judge Vasta had asked the man why he believed his employer had particular documents and said: "If you tell me 'because any [work]place should have something like this' you will be in contempt." The man replied that he was "self-represented" and the case was "complex" as Judge Vasta insisted he answer the question. Law Council of Australia president Arthur Moses, SC, said: "The Law Council is currently reviewing this decision which raises serious concerns about the conduct of a judicial officer. "Other issues concerning that judicial officer which have arisen in other appeals are being examined to ascertain how these matters can be dealt with in a manner that protects the public interest." Mr Moses said that "without commenting on this particular case, as we do not yet have access to the transcript and ... the appeal is yet to be finalised, appeal courts have made it clear that a judicial officer should never threaten a person appearing before her or him with contempt charges or have a person removed from the court unless the alleged contempt is particularised and there is a proper basis to do so".

The man at the centre of the case sought leave to appeal against Judge Vasta's preliminary orders. Federal Court Justice Darryl Rangiah granted leave on June 14. The appeal will be heard by a three-judge bench. Justice Rangiah said the appeal involved an allegation of apprehended bias, meaning Judge Vasta conducted the proceedings in a way that allegedly gave rise to an appearance of bias. The man also alleged he was denied "a reasonable opportunity to be heard because he was removed from the courtroom". NSW has an independent Judicial Commission to investigate complaints about state-based judges and magistrates, but there is no federal equivalent. Complaints about federal judges must be made to the court, and may then be referred to the Attorney-General. Mr Moses said the Law Council had "long called for a Federal Judicial Commission" to deal with such complaints. This "would allow issues to be canvassed in a procedurally fair manner to a judicial officer and a complainant" and "enhance public confidence in the federal judiciary". In another case this year, the Full Court of the Family Court said an order made by Judge Vasta banning a father in family law proceedings filing any new applications without the court's permission was made without any notice to the father, was not sought by the mother, and no reasons were given.

The Federal Circuit Court declined to comment.