Litigation

The Full Federal Court of Australia has granted leave for five Australian women to proceed with legal action against Qatar Airways and MATAR, following allegations that they were subjected to non-consensual and invasive physical examinations after being forcibly removed from a Qatar Airways flight in October 2020.

Background: Alleged Airport Examinations Spark Legal and Diplomatic Fallout

The incident occurred when a newborn baby was discovered abandoned at Hamad International Airport. In response, several female passengers, including the five Australian plaintiffs, were removed from their flight and taken to ambulances on the tarmac, where they allege they were subjected to invasive internal examinations in an effort to determine who had recently given birth.

The event triggered international condemnation, intensified diplomatic tensions between Australia and Qatar, and prompted urgent calls for accountability.

Legal Claims: Montreal Convention and Allegations of Psychological Harm

In 2021, three of the women brought claims for damages against Qatar Airways under the Montreal Convention 1999, asserting that the examinations constituted an “accident” under Article 17(1), giving rise to bodily injury during the course of international carriage.

Additionally, all five applicants brought claims in battery, negligence, assault, and false imprisonment, alleging psychological harm, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), with proceedings directed against Qatar Airways, MATAR, and the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority (QCAA).

Summary Dismissal Sought by Qatar Airways Rejected on Appeal

Qatar Airways sought summary judgment, arguing that the examinations did not occur during “embarkation or disembarkation” and thus fell outside the scope of Article 17(1). The court applied the “three-pronged” test from Kotsambasis v Singapore Airlines Ltd (1997) 42 NSWLR 110, assessing:

1. The passenger’s activity at the time.
2. The location of the passenger; and
3. The level of control exercised by the carrier.

Based on these factors, the primary judge found that the examinations were not part of the embarkation process; therefore, the Montreal Convention did not apply. Article 29 — which precludes concurrent tort claims — was also cited to exclude other legal avenues.

Separately, the QCAA was held to be immune from proceedings under the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth), being a separate entity of a foreign state.

Appeal Decision: Claims Against Airline and MATAR Can Proceed

On appeal, the Full Federal Court overturned the dismissal of claims against Qatar Airways and Matar, finding that the issues raised were too complex to be resolved at the summary stage.

“Whether or not the claims come within the scope of the Montreal Convention is a matter of some complexity,” the Court held. “It is therefore not an issue apt to be decided at the stage of summary dismissal.”

The Court also considered it arguable that the nurse who conducted the exams was acting as an agent of MATAR, potentially giving rise to a duty of care. Accordingly, the women were granted leave to proceed with their claims in negligence, assault, and false imprisonment.

However, the QCAA remains shielded from proceedings due to sovereign immunity.

Why This Court Decision Matters for Passenger Rights

This decision is about more than just international law; it’s about how passengers are treated as people, especially in moments of extreme vulnerability.

By allowing the claims to proceed, the Court has made space for a legal system that acknowledges the importance of bodily autonomy, mental well-being, and human dignity, even in complex, high-security contexts like international air travel.

It places a spotlight on the responsibility of airlines and airport operators, particularly those acting under the colour of state authority. The ruling sends a clear message: companies entrusted with passenger safety and welfare cannot sidestep accountability simply because incidents happen in ambiguous or unregulated spaces.

This case also pushes the boundaries of how courts view psychological harm, which, in this instance, forms the core of the plaintiffs’ injuries. If the Court ultimately recognises this harm under the Montreal Convention, it could mark a turning point in how trauma is understood and compensated in international aviation law.

Perhaps most importantly, the Court reaffirmed that access to justice matters, particularly when the facts involve potential violations of consent, privacy, and personal safety. Procedural rules should not act as a shield for powerful commercial interests when serious allegations are raised.

Looking Ahead: Potential Implications for Aviation Law

As this case moves to trial, it may influence future legal approaches in areas such as:

• Interpreting “embarkation/disembarkation” under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention
• Permitting tort-based claims in conjunction with international aviation treaties
• Recognising psychological injury without accompanying physical harm
• Clarifying liability for non-state and quasi-state airport operators
• Emphasising access to justice in complex, cross-border disputes

Have questions about your rights as a passenger or the changing landscape of aviation law?

Call us on +612 9283 5599 or complete the free and confidential call-back form below. We’re here to help.