Today, the Full Federal Court of Australia granted five Australian women the right to proceed with a lawsuit against Qatar Airways and MATAR, the company operating Hamad International Airport, following non-consensual internal medical examinations at Doha Airport in October 2020.
🔍 Background:
- In October 2020, after a newborn baby was discovered abandoned in a terminal bathroom, armed officers removed dozens of female passengers, including Australians, from flights and subjected several to invasive physical examinations—some strip-searches—in ambulances on the tarmac.
- The five women filed suit in 2022, accusing Qatar Airways, MATAR, and the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority (QCAA) of assault, negligence, false imprisonment, and violations under the Montreal Convention.
⚖️ Legal Journey:
- In April 2024, Justice John Halley of the Federal Court dismissed their claims against Qatar Airways and QCAA—holding that the examinations occurred off the aircraft and were conducted by Qatari police and nurses, not airline staff—though he allowed proceedings against MATAR to continue.
- Today, the Full Federal Court determined that it was erroneous to dismiss the claims at the preliminary stage. They ruled that it’s “not sufficiently certain” that the ambulance examinations didn’t form a part of disembarkation or airline operations. Consequently, both Qatar Airways and MATAR can now be held accountable in a full trial. The appeal against QCAA was dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds
📌 Significance & Next Steps:
- The Full Court’s ruling paves the way for a thorough trial to explore whether the ambulance event could legally be considered a component of disembarking—potentially bringing Qatar Airways within the scope of liability under the Montreal Convention.
- The women have described the incident as traumatic, citing mental health consequences including PTSD and depression
- The case will now return for full trial in Federal Court, where the airlines and airport operators will face detailed examination of their liability.
This landmark decision is a major win for the plaintiffs, emphasizing that preliminary dismissals should not preclude complex fact patterns from full judicial scrutiny. It also underscores the potential accountability of airlines for off-aircraft conduct closely tied to passenger operations.
