From another site.



Let me get this straight - He got caught by the court trying to illegally play on the court, then appealed to a higher court to get back on the court, but he lost at court and didn't get back on the court so now he wants to take the court that wouldn't let him back on the court to court....

Most champion players and champion athletes also have a very strong mental determination which has helped them get to where they are. They normally don't just give up when they come against something that is a bit more challenging. By the way, has he actually decided to sue? Previously, I had heard that he was only considering to sue.

-- Edited by watsea on Friday 21st of January 2022 10:51:10 AM

I would not be in a big hurry to laugh this one off. He came in on a visa and then it was cancelled, with the cancellation later ruled invalid as he was denied procedural fairness. This point was conceded by the Government lawyers. The issue is that he was then detained from the time of the invalid cancellation on the Friday morning until the court accepted the consent orders on the Monday afternoon. If the cancellation was invalid then he has a fairly strong case relying on the tort of false imprisonment. He just needs to be able to prove that he was detained, it was against his will and that it was unlawful. Game, set, match.

I recall about forty years ago when a lady paid a traffic fine that had been dealt with in court and then due to an administrative error, the payment was not noted. A warrant of commitment issued for the "unpaid fine" and the police arrested her and took her to the police station despite her protests. About two hours later her husband appeared with the receipt and she was released with a flurry of apologies. The government of the day settled that one with an ex gratia payment in the mid five figure bracket. I recall another incident when a lawyer was put in the cells by the sitting judge for contempt. He spent about an hour in the cells until released. It turned out the judge had not given him an opportunity to state his reply and that settled with an ex gratia payment of more than six figures. Look at the recent refuge detentions on Manus Island. In the New Guinea Constitution, false imprisonment is not allowed. This detention was deemed unconstitutional and that cost us millions. There are literally heaps of other cases where prisoners have been released later than their actual release date, people being held in custody after the bail has been ordered, they all end the same way. Most don't even need to commence the legal proceedings, there is a negotiated settlement made to avoid the probable costs that will be awarded in addition to the damages.

I think the other part of his claim that may have some legs is the fact that after the visa was granted and before arrival in Oz, he paid for airfares for him and his entourage, accommodation and all the rest. Even if he got knocked out in the first round, I think that prize money is 100K.

The six million is a bit of poetic licence as when you commence action in the Supreme Courts, the jurisdiction is unlimited and the actual amount is not stated in the claim. It is determined after evidence is given as to loss of income, expenses incurred and general damages.

If he takes this on I doubt if the Government would be game to run it. It will be settled with an ex gratia payment on terms not to be disclosed.

I wonder how many smart comments will be coming if he does a number on us using the laws that have been in existence for hundreds of years before being adopted here.

Is there anything that they touch that does not end up a total mess.

All that needed to be done in the first instance was to allow him to go to residence and to arrange to have this sorted within twenty four hours. But no, there were no votes in that.

-- Edited by DMaxer on Friday 21st of January 2022 11:48:30 AM

-- Edited by DMaxer on Friday 21st of January 2022 11:49:05 AM

He'll most likely win the case & our taxes will pay for it.
Isn't that the way "modern life" goes these days?

If he sues, successfully or not, I suspect he can say goodbye to a visa for at least three years.

He won't have to issue proceedings. Once the intent is made to the Australian Government it will be resolved and a financial ex gratia payment will be made and not disclosed to anyone as part of the deal. A statement will then be released to say that their differences have been reconciled and we look forward to Novak coming back to Australia next year when the virus has been brought under control by our brilliant Government.

I have seen quite a few of these type of claims and I have never seen one with any merit that requires process to issue. . If they know they are on a loser they just settle.

End of story. It will be a done deal.

-- Edited by DMaxer on Friday 21st of January 2022 06:27:07 PM

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:

---

Mike Harding wrote:

---

If he sues, successfully or not, I suspect he can say goodbye to a visa for at least three years.

---

 And a pile of sponsors too.

Cheers,

Peter

---

 I agree,

He would need to be very careful how he and his advisors approach this situation from here on.

It would be easier for him just to go and get vaccinated.

He could even turn the event into a winning post for him if he was half smart.

I'm inclined to agree with Landy.

Yeh, got me beat why he just didn't get a couple of jabs considering what was at stake. Bit dull, our up himself if you ask me

I understand your point Landry but the Minister stated that the dodgy application and his unvaccinated state were not the reasons the visa was cancelled, it was the possibility that non vaccinated people my be drawn into civil unrest. He was not free to leave even if he agreed to catch the next plane. He would have remained in detention until that time. Anyway, form your own view, I just gave you my opinion thats all.

oldbloke wrote:

---

dorian wrote:

---

Djokovic is an unflushable turd that just won't go away.

---

 So,, he's one of those massive floaters. :jawdrop:

 

---

 They only happen when in someone elses house or in this case, country. 

His visa was ruled to be unlawfully cancelled Dorian. The Minister cancelled it on grounds that he was a risk to public order and did not have issues with him being unvaccinated. This means nothing in respect to his claim.

littledick wrote:

---

dorian wrote:

---

Djokovic is an unflushable turd that just won't go away.

---

I like that.

Dick. 

---

I don't like it littledick, It would be much much better if he was flushable.

And another loser who got his Kharma, arguing the whole tournament. Well done to the grunter.