Qantas Jab Mandate Case

Qantas Jab Mandate Case

Qantas Jab Mandate Case

Re: the Legality of Mandating Covid Injections for Qantas Ariline Pilots as a Condition for Employment


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Jan 21, 2022 (filed)
  • Location: Australia
  • Court: Federal Court of Australia, Queensland
  • Case #: QUD17/2022
  • Plaintiff: Mr. Marc Motion & others
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Rob Grealy
  • Defendant: Qantas Airways Ltd.
  • Trial Type: Employment Contract Law
  • Justice: Rangiah, Kylie Downes
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD

*updated Dec 14, 2022


The “Magnificent Qantas 24” was a group of 24 Airline Staff, Now numbering 60!!  These staff were brave enough to stand up for basic workplace rights and Freedom to Choose.  All have now been terminated and egregiously accused of “Serious Misconduct” for deciding they didn’t want to take the risk of the injection.[2]

As their site says: [1]

‘Freedoms have to be protected and fought for. This is why we, an all-volunteer group of Australian Air, Land and Sea professionals share a specific mission: to protect our inalienable rights.’ [1]

The employees terminated have brought a ‘breach of contract’ claim against Virgin Australia and Jetstar to the Federal Court, where their case centres around an alleged breaching of their EBA, the Work Health and Safety Act, Privacy Act, the Australian Human Rights Act, the Discrimination Act, and the Fair Work Act. [1]

The employees involved have expressed their unhappiness about what they feel is an infringement on their human rights that lacked – according to their opinion – meaningful consultation and appropriate individualised risk assessment. [1]

‘We are all unemployed since our terminations and … not in a position to fund the type of case the respondents are attempting to force upon us,’ said Shane Murdock, who is a former pilot at Virgin. [1]

Government Mandates

Qantas, Virgin, and Jetstar were among the first businesses in the country to bring in mandatory vaccination requirements on staff and passengers during the Covid pandemic. Employees, including pilots, were given a short period of time to comply with vaccination orders or have their employment terminated. Those who are challenging the mandates in court refused to give ‘valid consent’ to vaccination and allege that the vaccine order, in their view, constituted a ‘significant material change’ to their existing employment EBA. [1]

Qantas announced in August 2021 that all frontline staff across the group, including pilots, cabin crew and ground services workers would be required to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by 15 November, or face dismissal. [5]


After lodging their class action case with the Federal Court last month, the unvaccinated workers also applied for an urgent interim injunction to prevent Qantas from enforcing disciplinary action under the policy, allowing them to keep their jobs throughout the legal proceedings. [5]

The injunction was denied due to insufficient evidence. [5]

At the interlocutory hearing last month, Grealy argued that Qantas had “failed to undertake sufficient investigation into the safety of the available vaccines” before implementing the company-wide mandate. [5]

“We also say the requirement that employees provide copies of the vaccination certificate to be uploaded to a database is a breach of the Privacy Act,” Grealy argued. [5]

Justice Kylie Downes replied that the claim made was “based on his assessment … There’s no evidence before me from an expert saying this. [5]

“It’s your opinion, and you’re a solicitor.” [5]

The court also heard the unvaccinated workers argue that overall, government public health orders were not lawful, due to being “inconsistent with other legislation which takes precedence”. [5]

Justice Downes told the court it was “difficult to understand” why the applicants waited until after the policy deadline to make an application for “urgent relief” from disciplinary action. [5]

Freedom Flyer Groups

Groups of pilots and former employees have sprung up around the world to fight against vaccine mandates. In Australia, the Aussie Freedom Flyers continue the push to dismantle mandates and restore employment to those who were sacked. [1]

Freedom Flyer groups have been unifying internationally under the Global Aviation Advocacy Coalition, who raise a range of separate safety concerns following several ‘near miss’ events internationally related to pilot heart emergencies. They are, amongst other things, requesting increased scrutiny on pilot health after vaccination. [1]

‘Covid political decisions damaged the aviation industry’ claims the Global Aviation Advocacy Coalition. [1]

In particular, the ‘Magnificent Qantas 24’ …. are former airline employees involved in the fight. [1]

Qantas Drops Travel Mandates

Qantas has announced it will be dropping vaccine requirements for international travel starting July 19, (finally) bringing it in line with many other international airlines. While unvaccinated passengers are set to take to the skies, employees of the airline are under strict vaccination orders. [1]

These orders remain in place despite staff shortages that have seen Australia’s airports descend into chaos. Lengthy delays, alarming luggage losses, crowds of ticket-waving parents trying to calm screaming children while queuing to the point no one knows where the queue actually is – a general aura of aggravation has become synonymous with flying in the post-pandemic world. [1]

The hole left by unvaccinated staff has been compounded by ground staff who also lost their jobs over a separate dispute. [1]

Even though airlines are desperate, they have not indicated any intention of welcoming back experienced employees who were sacked for refusing vaccine orders. This is especially true of pilots, who are not easy to come by. Worse, Virgin, Jetstar, and Qantas are fighting some of these unvaccinated former employees in court. [1]

Qantas Group CEO Alan Joyce said in August of 2021: [1]

‘Having a fully vaccinated workforce will safeguard our people against the virus but also protect our customers and the communities we fly to. [1]

‘We understand there will be a very small number of people who decide not to get the vaccine, and that’s their right, but it’s our responsibility to provide the safest possible environment for our employees and for our customers.’ [1]


An expected win in Federal Court, will set a precedent for the entire country.

A case was filed on 21 Jan 2022 and is proceeding through the legal system.

On Monday Feb 21, 2022, Federal Court Justice Darryl Rangiah – who has repeatedly expressed his concern about the lack of clarity in the complainant’s case – requested that the lawyer representing the group rewrite the case for the third time.

The complainant’s lawyer Rob Grealy again promised to produce medical and scientific evidence in support of his case that Qantas’ decision to introduce a COVID vaccine mandate for all staff was discriminatory and unlawful.

“There are circumstances in which the Human Rights Act allows discrimination or impingement on human rights where those circumstances are serious enough to warrant that sort of conduct,” Grealy said.

“In our view, the risk posed by the virus in the Qantas workplace was not significant enough to warrant the vaccination mandate.”

A directions hearing for their case took place on July 12, 2022. Submissions of evidence have begun, with another directions hearing scheduled for December 7. [1]

The next court date for a ‘Case Management Hearing’ is Feb 6 2023.[3]



This case has the potential to set a global precedent by overturning airline vaccine mandates for pilots.


Plaintiff’s Argument

These employees recognised that the corporate mandates, pushed at Qantas and Jetstar, were operating out of their lane of expertise and were a clear breach of their employment EBA contracts, AND the fact that NO medical personnel are legally allowed to administer a medicine if there is any evidence of coercion, manipulation or undue pressure. The policy of the Qantas group clearly stated – No Jab No Job, this is the definition of coercion.  [2]


Defendant’s Argument

… the Qantas Group is seeking to comply with what it understands to be lawful public health orders and directions imposed by the states in which it operates its business. Further, the Qantas Group operates a six-stage process by which it communicates with employees who do not wish to be vaccinated.  It has given its employees months to get vaccinated, and they have not done so. [4]


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

This mandate problem can be seen when challenges to NSW health orders were dismissed: ‘It is important to note that the Supreme Court made it clear that the Court’s role was not to assess the merits of the Public Health Orders as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, the sole task of the Supreme Court was to determine the legality of the Public Health Orders within the limits of the Public Health Act.’ [1]





Pilots vs. Quantas Mandates -Dec 9 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Quantas Pilot Speaks Out -Dec 9 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Corona Ausschuss #134 Quantas Pilot Speaks Out – Full interview -Dec 9 2022

source: Odysee/ longXXvids

Quantas pilot protests – part 1 – Sep 7 2021

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Global Aviation: “Passengers Would Be Livid”

source: Odysee/ Global Aviation Advocacy Coalition

Aussie Pilots Sue Over Safety Concerns -July 17 2022

source: Rumble/ GoodSauce

Global Aviation: Fit to Fly? Part 1

source: Odysee/ Global Aviation Advocacy Coalition

Global Aviation: Fit to Fly? Part 2

source: Odysee/ Global Aviation Advocacy Coalition

Global Aviation: Fit to Fly? Part 3

source: Odysee/ Global Aviation Advocacy Coalition



  1. Freedom Flyers: the fight against vaccine mandates
  3. Commonwealth Courts Applications for file
  4. Federal Court of Australia -Motion v Qantas Airways Limited [2022] FCA 25- Judgement Jan 24 2022
  5. Judge calls case against Qantas vaccine mandate ‘unclear’ and ‘scrambled’



Air Safety, Airline, Airways, Aussie Freedom Flyers, Australia, Coercion, Employment Discrimination, Injection, Jab, Magnificent Qantas 24, Mandate, Motion, No Jab, No Job, Pilots, Qantas, Queensland, Terminated, Travel

Back to All Cases


SA Mandate Case: Supreme Court

SA Mandate Case: Supreme Court

SA Mandate Case

Re: the Legality of Violating the Rights of a person’s Medical Autonomy via a state enforced injection


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: March, 2022
  • Location: South Australia
  • Court: Supreme Court
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: Varnhagen, police, education & health workers
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Loretta Polson
  • Defendant:
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge:
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD

*updated March 11, 2022


Nurse and AFLW Adelaide Crows player Deni Varnhagen is among a group of four education and health workers seeking a judicial review of the mandates, which they claim are invalid. In addition, The Supreme Court heard two police officers who also want to be added to the case, challenging the mandatory vaccination policy for SA Police. [1]

Two healthcare workers and two education workers all claim to have lost their jobs due to vaccine mandates introduced under SA’s Emergency Management Act. [3] Dual Adelaide AFLW premiership defender Deni Varnhagen will not be allowed to play in the competition this season after refusing to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. [4]

The applicants are seeking an expedited hearing and have asked for a three-day trial during the week beginning March 14, which falls five days before the state election. [1]

Nurse Deni Varnhagen, the primary Plaintiff said: [2]

“We are all just here for freedom of choice basically, we all deserve the right to decide what we put into our bodies,” Ms Varnhagen said. 

“Coercion is not consent. We shouldn’t be losing our jobs or even be forced. 

“I wish I was at work caring for people, doing the things that I’m good at.” 


The mandatory vaccination direction came into effect yesterday (Nov 1, 2021), but hundreds of staff across the health system have not met the deadline. On Tuesday (Nov 2, 2021), Women’s and Children’s Hospital CEO Lindsay Gough confirmed that at her hospital alone 133 people had not been vaccinated. [1]


Lawyers for the state government said although they agreed the matter needed to be heard urgently, they may apply for an application to vacate that trial date depending on preparations and the ability to get its own expert witness. [1]


A lawyer for the applicants also foreshadowed an application to have an auxiliary judge — either retired or from interstate — hear the trial due to any perceived bias arising out of the Courts Administration Authority imposing its own vaccination mandate. [1]

The court heard the applicants would call Flinders University Professor Nikolai Petrovsky to give evidence about “technical matters relating to the vaccine”. [1]

The group’s lawyer, Loretta Polson, said outside court that “compelling, scientific, medical evidence” would be presented “to demonstrate that vaccination does not prevent COVID-19 transmission”. [1]

She also questioned the power of SA Police Commissioner Grant Stevens — the state coordinator during the coronavirus pandemic — to impose mandates. [1]

“We are amending the application to challenge a further mandate directed to police officers,” Ms Polson said. [1]

“Police officers are now being advised that they need to be vaccinated at the risk of losing their livelihood and careers. [1]

How many more insidious mandates are to be imposed upon the workers of South Australia by a public servant?” [1]

At a directions hearing on Thursday (Feb 17 2022), the court set down four days to hear the case starting on March 17. [5]



This case challenges the right of a government or employer to force unwanted substances into its citizens/employees


Plaintiff’s Argument

…More information is needed…


Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…



…More information is needed…



…More information is needed…

Further Research

Court Documents:
  • Read the Court Ruling
In the news:
  • …More information is needed…




source: ….

SA Police Join Mandate Challenge

source: 7NEWS Australia


source: ….



  1. SA Police officers want to join Adelaide Crows AFLW player in vaccination mandate appeal
  2. More than 100 staff at Adelaide’s Women’s and Children’s Hospital refuse to get vaccinated against COVID-19
  3. AFLW Crows player Deni Varnhagen challenges SA’s COVID vaccine mandate in court
  4. Unvaccinated Crow Deni Varnhagen out of AFLW season
  5. Trial over SA vaccine rules next month



AFLW, Adelaide, Australia, Crows, Deni, education, Flinders University, health workers, judicial review, Loretta Polson, mandates, Nikolai, Nurse, Petrovsky, player, professor, South Australia, Supreme Court, Vaccine, Varnhagen

Back to All Cases


Djokovic Visa Case

Djokovic Visa Case

Djokovic Visa Case

Re: the Legality of denying entry into Australia without vaccination


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Jan 9 & 16, 2022 [3]
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia [3]
  • Court: Federal Circuit & Family Court of Australia [3]
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: Novak Djokovic
  • Defendant: Australian Government
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge:
  • Status: Decided
  • Verdict #1: for the Plaintiff
  • Verdict #2: for the Defendant



Tennis world number one Novak Djokovic said in a legal challenge on Saturday to being refused entry to Australia that he had been given medical exemption from vaccination against COVID-19 because he had contracted the illness last month. [1]

In a court filing ahead of a hearing on Monday over his visa cancellation Djokovic said he had received the exemption from tournament organizer Tennis Australia, with a follow-up letter from the Department of Home Affairs saying he was allowed into the country. [1]

Federal officials have deemed that exemption insufficient for the 34-year-old to be allowed into the country, and initially moved to cancel his visa in the hours after his arrival. [11] Authorities promptly assessed Djokovic and rejected him for entry upon arrival. His visa was canceled on the spot and he was taken into temporary immigration detention on grounds he failed to provide evidence he was double-vaccinated or had a legitimate exemption to the policy. [12]

The Serbian player, hoping to win his 21st Grand Slam at the Australian Open later this month, is on his third day in immigration detention in Melbourne – a case that has caused a sporting, political and diplomatic furor. [1]

“I explained that I had been recently infected with COVID in December 2021 and on this basis I was entitled to a medical exemption in accordance with Australian Government rules and guidance,” Djokovic said in the filing and told Australian Border Force officers that “I had correctly made my Australian Travel Declaration and otherwise satisfied all necessary requirements in order to lawfully enter Australia on my visa”. [1]

Djokovic had his first positive COVID-19 test on Dec. 16 but by Dec. 30 “had not had a fever or respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 in the last 72 hours”, the filing said. [1]

On Jan. 1, it said, he received a document from Home Affairs telling him his responses indicated that he met “the requirements for a quarantine-free arrival into Australia”. [1]

The federal court has ordered Home Affairs to file its response by Sunday. The Australian Open starts on Jan. 17. [1]


At the heart of the dispute is Djokovic’s refusal to be vaccinated against COVID. Under current Australian law, all international arrivals are required to be vaccinated against COVID unless they have a medical exemption. [12] The tennis star said in the past that he opposed vaccination and “wouldn’t want to be forced by someone to take a vaccine in order to be able to travel.” [5]



Djokovic’s court filing confirmed a media report that he had asked to be moved to lodgings with access to a tennis court but that his request was denied. The Park Hotel, where he is staying, is also home to dozens of asylum seekers trying to enter the country. [1]

Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabic said the player had been provided with gluten-free food, tools to exercise and a sim card. [1]

“He’s staying in Park Hotel until the final decision is made,” Brnabic told Serbian media. “We’ve managed to make sure gluten-free food is delivered to him, as well as exercising tools, a laptop and a sim card so that he is able to be in contact with his family.” [1]

“It’s a positive tone from the Australian side. The Serbian government is ready to provide all the guarantees necessary for Novak to be allowed to enter Australia, the Serbian president (Aleksandar Vucic) is also involved,” Brnabic said. read more [1]

The player’s family has been vocal in its support in recent days and his father, Srdjan Djokovic, said on Saturday he was “disgusted” at his son’s treatment in Australia. Djokovic’s parents joined a protest rally in downtown Belgrade. [3]

Djokovic’s mother, Dijana Djokovic said that the conditions in the hotel in Melbourne where Djokovic is staying are “not humane.” [3]

“He doesn’t even have breakfast,” she said. “He has a wall to stare at and he can’t even see a park in front or go out of the room.” [3]


Government Response

The federal and Victorian state governments and Tennis Australia have denied responsibility for the dispute. [1]

If he fails to have his visa cancellation overturned and gets deported, Djokovic could be barred from the country for up to three years. [3]

In an emailed response to The Associated Press about what could transpire if Djokovic loses his legal fight, the Australian Border Force said: “A person whose visa has been canceled may be subject to a three-year exclusion period that prevents the grant of a further temporary visa…The exclusion period will be considered as part of any new visa application and can be waived in certain circumstances, noting each case is assessed on its own merits.” [3]

Morrison had come out firmly in support of the Australian border authorities and their initial decision to cancel Djokovic’s visa. [4]

“Djokovic’s visa has been cancelled. Rules are rules, especially when it comes to our borders. No one is above these rules,” Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison tweeted at the time. [5]


Other Players

Djokovic was one of two players put into detention in a hotel in Melbourne that also houses refugees and asylum seekers. A third person, reported to be an official, left the country voluntarily after border force investigations. [3]

Meanwhile Czech player Renata Voracova, who was detained in the same detention hotel as Djokovic and had her visa revoked after issues with her exemption, [1] had already been in Australia for a week before an investigation by the border officials. She told media from the Czech Republic she’d been confined to a room and there was a guard in the corridor. [3] She left the country on Saturday, the Czech Foreign Ministry said. [1]



The drama has caused tensions between Serbia and Australia and has also become a flashpoint for opponents of vaccine mandates around the world. [1]

The tennis icon’s case has transcended sport to become an international row, with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic accusing Australia and its prime minister, Scott Morrison, of conducting a “political with hunt” against Djokovic. [4]


According to the the Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) : [10] The argument of the Federal Government in the Novak Djokovic case sets a dangerous precedent in a democratic society.

“Our key concern was not whether Mr Djokovic was able to play tennis this week. Our concern is the Federal Government’s view that it did not have to prove that Mr Djokovic would foster views about vaccination that are contrary to the government, but simply that he may foster those sentiments,” said Mr Greg Barns SC, spokesperson for the ALA.

“This is a very low bar for excluding a person from Australia ….

“Using the criteria of a possible risk to public order as a reason to refuse a person entry into the country is troubling in a society supposedly committed to freedom of speech and freedom of thought.


Plaintiff’s Argument

Novak Djokovic said to being refused entry to Australia that he had been given medical exemption from vaccination against COVID-19 because he had contracted the illness last month. [1]

The virtual hearing began Monday in Melbourne, with Djokovic appealing his visa cancellation amid a growing public debate over his positive coronavirus test that his lawyers used as grounds in applying for a medical exemption to Australia’s strict vaccination rules. [2]

Djokovic’s lawyers filed court papers Saturday in his challenge against deportation from Australia that show the tennis star tested positive for COVID-19 last month and recovered, grounds he used in applying for a medical exemption to the country’s strict vaccination rules. [3]

The court submission Saturday said Djokovic received confirmation from Australia’s Department of Home Affairs saying that his travel declaration had been assessed and that his responses indicated he met the requirements for quarantine-free arrival in Australia. [3]


Defendant’s Argument

Tennis Australia and the government of Victoria state, where the Australian Open is played, are blaming confusion over the precise definitions regarding grounds for medical exemptions. [3]

The Victoria state government mandated that all players, staff, fans and officials must be fully vaccinated for COVID-19 to enter the tournament.

The state, which approved the medical exemptions for Djokovic, said those exemptions for were for access to Melbourne Park, not the border.

Australian Open organizers have not commented publicly, except to tell Australian newspapers that no players have been misled over the vaccination requirements.


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…


Decision #1

The Federal Circuit Court in Melbourne had ordered that Djokovic be released after stating that the Australian authorities had behaved “unreasonably” in canceling the world number one’s visa upon his arrival in the country last week. [4]


Aftermath #1

Despite being backed by Judge Anthony Kelly, who ordered his release, Djokovic was warned by government barrister Christopher Tan that Immigration Minister Alex Hawke could yet exercise his personal power to cancel Djokovic’s visa once again and deport him. [4]

However, it later emerged that no decision had been taken by Hawke and that “the minister is currently considering the matter and the process remains ongoing,” according to a spokesperson. [4]

Just four days after a federal judge ordered Djokovic released from hotel detention when his visa was revoked the first time, the minister’s decision moved to cancel the 34-year-old player’s visa citing “health and good order” grounds — just three days before the Australian Open begins [12]


Robert Kennedy Jr (a staunch advocate against Covid measures) defended Novak’s appeal for a medical exemption from vaccination is “squarely based in long-standing evidence” around the superior protection offered by natural immunity compared to vaccination. Kennedy added: [12]

“The science hasn’t changed over the last five days. Why the waffling around his visa status? Morrison’s attempt to frame the Australian citizens as the victims of Djokovic’s private health decision is a naked exercise in tyrannical political power. The ‘sacrifices’ of the Australian people Morrison refers to aren’t sacrifices at all. They are injuries borne of his nonsensical policies, and Djokovic is bringing international attention to them.”


Decision #2

Australian Minister for Immigration Hawke, successfully overturned the initial decision to cancel his visa on procedural grounds and re-imposed the penalty, citing the potential for Djokovic’s presence in the country to foster anti-vaccination sentiment. [9]

Alex Hawke’s decision to cancel the top seed and reigning champion’s visa for a second time was upheld by a court a day before the tournament started, leaving frustrated Djokovic to take a flight to Dubai rather than defend his title [6]

Announcing the decision, Hawke said the step was taken “in the public interest” while citing “health grounds.” [11]


Aftermath #2

By being deported from Melbourne, Djokovic was denied the chance to win a record 21st Grand Slam title overall, which would have moved him one ahead of great rivals Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer. [7]

Morrison has backed the actions of Hawke. “Our strong border protection policies have kept Australians safe, prior to Covid and now during the pandemic.”  [11]


The tennis icon, who has already received emphatic backing from the likes of Serbian president Aleksander Vucic and even Serbian royalty, will have a message of support displayed prominently on the Belgrade Tower in the Serbian capital on Sunday evening. [8]

“Nole, you are the pride of Serbia,”

the message, which will be displayed between 8pm and 9pm local time, will read, before being replaced by the Serbian tricolor. [8]

Angry Vucic, who has described the attempts by Australian immigration authorities to revoke his visa as a “witch hunt“, castigated officials for their treatment of Djokovic. [8]

“[Against] Novak, they wanted to show how the world order works and how they can [act] against everyone. With [this decision], they humiliated not Novak, but themselves,” he said in reaction to the verdict. [8]

“I spoke to Djokovic and told him we cannot wait to see him,” he added. “I told him he is always welcome in Serbia.” [8]


Djokovic could find himself sidelined for another Grand Slam with new Covid rules set to be introduced in France. after the French National Assembly approved the introduction of a controversial new vaccine pass which will exclude anyone who is not fully jabbed from restaurants, sports arenas and other venues. [7]

The legislation is set to come into force in the coming days, and was backed by Sports Minister Maracineanu. [7]

The vaccination pass has been adopted. As soon as the law is promulgated, it will become mandatory to enter public buildings already subject to the health pass (stadium, theater or lounge) for all spectators, practitioners, French or foreign professionals,” she tweeted. [7]

Elsewhere, French President Emmanuel Macron vowed earlier this month to do everything he could to “piss off” the unvaccinated population. 


Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:



Djokovic Supporters

source: Djoker Nole

Morrison cancels Djokovic

source: Alex Christoforou

World Council for Health Supports Djokovic

Source: World Council for Health



  1. Djokovic argues he had Australia green light because of recent COVID infection
  2. Watch Novak Djokovic’s visa deportation hearing live from Australia
  3. Novak Djokovic had COVID-19 last month, lawyers argue in vaccine dispute
  4. Australian immigration minister issues Djokovic statement
  5. WATCH: Police pepper-spray protesters demanding to ‘Free Nole’
  6. Djokovic culpable for ‘mess’ – Nadal
  7. Djokovic facing fresh Grand Slam blow
  8. Djokovic ‘must pay huge sum to Australia’ – report
  9. Novak Djokovic news: French Open title defence under threat for world No 1
  10. Djokovic case sets dangerous precedent
  11. Djokovic visa cancelation ‘protects sacrifices of Australians,’ claims PM
  12. Australia Revokes Djokovic’s Visa Again, Refuses to Acknowledge Natural Immunity



Australia, Australian Border Force, Border, Brnabic, Cancellation, Detention, Djokovic, Entry, Exemption, Home Affairs, Immigration, Macron, Maracineanu, medical, Melbourne, Novak, Prime Minister, Refuse, Renata, Serbia, Sports Minister, Tennis, Visa, Voracova, Vucic, Tennis, Australia, Immigration, Detention, Melbourne, Visa, Cancellation, Entry, Medical, Exemption, Refuse, Serbia, Australian Border Force, Border, Home Affairs, Renata, Voracova, Brnabic, Prime Minister, Vucic, Macron, Sports Minister, Maracineanu

Back to All Cases