Why Novak’s legal fight could drag on for days

Novak Djokovic’s legal team faces a drawn-out challenge to appeal his visa cancellation. An immigration law expert reveals how the process will play out.

Novak Djokovic faces a days-long legal fight in Melbourne if his lawyers are successful in the first step of their challenge against his visa cancellation.

Maggie Taaffe, principal lawyer at AHWC Immigration Law, has outlined the coming days for the tennis star as his legal team plans to fight the federal government decision.

The immigration law expert said the first thing Djokovic’s lawyers would do was seek an urgent injunction in the Federal Circuit Court to prevent him from being deported.

“That’s essentially a restraining order to stop him being deported while they consider an appeal,” she said.

An urgent injunction is expected to be heard on Thursday, and if successful, would give Djokovic’s lawyers a few days to lodge an appeal.

Novak Djokovic’s lawyers are in for a fight. Picture: AP

Ms Taaffe said a person appealing a visa cancellation would generally be sent to immigration detention pending the outcome of a legal challenge.

Djokovic has been sent to a hotel, which has been classified as a detention centre.

The legal eagle said authorities also had the ability to grant Djokovic a Bridging Visa E, which would legally allow him to stay in Australia and be among the community, but would give him no working rights.

As to the back-and-forth between the Victorian and federal governments over who was to blame for the debacle, Ms Taaffe said the Commonwealth had “total jurisdiction making decisions about visas”, which were then managed by Border Force.

While it’s not known what visa Djokovic was granted, or on what grounds, she said there were some classes of visa where the state could support an application.

However, Federal authorities still had to grant it.

“Whoever granted his visa should have taken his medical claims on board and assessed those independently, not relied on the Victorian government,” Ms Taaffe said.

She questioned whether Djokovic himself had a hand in the to-and-fro fiasco.

“If he hadn’t made that tweet creating this complete furore (announcing he was coming to Australia and had a medical exemption) it’s possible he could have come in quietly,” she said.

Ms Taaffe also queried whether the proper procedure was followed in the case, which allowed Djokovic to fly to Australia.

“In terms of the legal process, you do wonder whether the correct legal process has been followed from the beginning,” she said.