Novak Djokovic court hearing analysis: How both sides are arguing their cases

But this is set to be one hell of a five-setter as Home Affairs prepares its return shot.

The Serbian superstar’s lawyers served first in the case that will determine whether he is permitted to stay in Australia for his crack at a record-breaking 21st grand slam victory next week.

And while the government’s counsel is yet to have its say, it appears they have landed a few early aces.

Nick Wood SC is speaking on behalf of Djokovic’s legal team and has emphasised throughout that the world No. 1 had provided documents indicating his medical contraindication to Covid vaccination due to his recent Covid infection.

FOLLOW THE OUR LIVE COVERAGE OF THE VISA FIGHT

The documents, which were provided by a physician and the chief medical officer of Tennis Australia, were uploaded as part of his visa application process and, he believed, accepted by authorities.

And it was a point not lost on Judge Kelly, who is set to make a determination on the star’s fate today.

“What more could this man have done?,” he said.

“Further, that medical exemption and basis on which it has been given was separately given by an independent … panel established by the Victorian state government,” Judge Kelly said.

“That document was in the hands of the delegate (Home Affairs).”

Judge Kelly said Djokovic had been “quite candid” in interviews with the border officials.

“In effect, (he) wouldn’t even have come here” if he didn’t have everything needed to get into the country,” the judge said.

It has also been alleged by Djokovic’s team that border officials had attempted to hurry the process along on Thursday morning, telling the Serbian that their shift was due to end.

Judge Kelly has raised questions regarding procedural fairness to the tennis star, who he said had his phone taken off him by Border Force delegates and was told it “isn’t going to help” to speak with his lawyers.

The court heard that a reading of the transcript of interview suggested that border authorities at Tullamarine told Djokovic, “look, getting in touch with your lawyers really isn’t going to help with any of this so let’s just get it done”.

Djokovic called on the officers to postpone the interview until 8.30am “if possible”, when Tennis Australia officials and his team were awake and could come to his aid.

But the delegate replied, “no, that’s not on”.

Mr Wood said that his client was told during the interview that he could have until 8.30am to speak with Tennis Australia but that was ultimately “reneged” on.

“In substance what happened was … the (Border Force) delegate at a point during the interview process was indicating to Mr Djokovic that his shift was about to come up,” Mr Wood told the court.

This was an “interesting feature of the story” to help understand why there was ultimately a “reneging from the agreement to allow Mr Djokovic reasonably until 8.30am to speak to Tennis Australia and so forth.”

His legal team have also argued that the wording of the biosecurity rules only say that travellers “can” provide evidence of medical contraindication necessity, not that they “must”.

When the court returns, representatives for the Home Affairs minister will take the new balls and prepare to launch their own attack.

The online link to the court hearing has repeatedly crashed as thousands of people try to watch the drama unfold.

The matter again went offline about midday, as Djokovic’s lawyers were arguing their case.

Stay tuned.

Originally published as Novak Djokovic court hearing analysis: How both sides are arguing their cases