Have any questions? Call us: 
Five Australian women who were forced off their flight at Doha international airport in October 2020 and subjected to invasive physical examinations in an ambulance on the tarmac without their consent can continue their compensation fight against Qatar Airways for the assaults.
The examinations followed the discovery of a newborn baby in a toilet cubicle at an airport terminal and were purportedly to investigate whether or not any of the passengers had just given birth.
The women had boarded the flight for their return to Sydney some hours earlier before the aircraft was returned to the gate. All women passengers were directed by airline crew and by officials to leave the aircraft.
The injury claims against Qatar Airways were made under the Montréal Convention and under the law relating to assault, battery and wrongful imprisonment.
The Convention claims were defended on the basis that the events did not occur in the course of passenger “carriage” and they – like the assault and battery claims – are therefore barred by operation of the exclusivity principle in the Montréal Convention.
Justice John Halley granted the airline summary judgement when its strike out application came before him in the Federal Court in April 2024. He concluded the passengers had “no reasonable prospects of success” because the examinations did not take place in the course of the flight or during embarkation or disembarkation.
He also ruled that the other defendant, the Qatar civil aviation authority was insulated from liability by operation of the doctrine of state immunity.
The passengers appealed the summary dismissal.
They contended that Article 29 of the Convention does not confine damages recovery by passengers against airlines to accidents during a flight or when embarking or disembarking.
They argued that the term “international carriage by air” carried a temporal implication that in turn limited the liability exclusivity extended by the Convention.
The appeal judges agreed with the passengers’ contention the strike out was precipitous and reversed the summary judgment ruling thus allowing the claims against the airline to proceed.
Justice Angus Stewart who delivered the lead judgment of the court, observed that it would be a “drastic conclusion” were the provision in Article 29 to exclude all other claims that might arise against an airline associated with international air carriage, for example where a passenger slips on spillage in an airline lounge and suffers injury.
In Justice Stewart’s view, the primary judge erred in summarily dismissing claims involving intricate legal issues that were “not apt to be decided at the stage of summary dismissal”.
The appeal judges refused though to overturn the immunity from liability ruling as against the civil aviation authority.
The airline has since sought to reinstate the summary dismissal of the passengers’ compensation claims by obtaining special leave to appeal to the High Court.
The High Court refused the special leave application earlier in November.
The passengers’ claims can now go to a trial in the Federal Court which can be expected in mid to late 2026. They bring interesting arguments that conflict with some conventional interpretations of international air carriage law. It is likely that even after the trial, a fresh round of appeals will ensue.
QATAR AIRWAYS GROUP Q.C.S.C v DHI22 & ORS [2025] HCA Disp 257 S121/2025 6 November 2025
Categories: aircraft accident , Aviation Law