Nope. Here’s a good thread summarising the original cancellation: https://twitter.com/sangpillai/status/1481906405011783682

Note that:

> No agreement, and no decision, was made on whether the ABF officer could have cancelled Djokovic’s visa under s 116 in a watertight way. All that was found was that the process he followed was deficient enough that the original cancellation couldn’t stand.

I do not understand the "what more could this man have done?" line.

Trying very hard to meet the rules for entering a country, but not actually being able to meet them, does not normally give people the right to enter that country.

I think the sticking point here was that he was given approval by the Victorian government which failed to communicate with the federal government. Arguably you can frame it as his fault that he did not get an assurance from the federal government, but a reasonable person would not expect the state government to have failed to secure the required assurances from the federal government.

Failure to understand the system is also not usually grounds for being allowed to enter a country.

Yes. Even the court says he provided the documentation required.

I don't understand how anyone can defend Australia's arbritary and vengeful border practices.

If the Australian authorities didn't want him in because he is an evil anti-vaxxer then they could have just denied visa from the get go.

Nope. That was a private comment made by the judge (who is obviously lacking in impartiality, since he made that comment very early on, before the two sides presented their cases). The decision to quash the original cancellation was due to agreement between Djokovic’s and the government’s legal teams, and the judge made no ruling of his own. See linked Twitter thread in the sibling comment.