Five women who allege they were forced off a Qatar Airways plane by armed guards and intimately examined at Doha airport are attempting to overturn a legal decision that found they could not sue the airline directly.
Earlier this month, Australia’s federal court dismissed a lawsuit lodged against Qatar Airways over the October 2020 incident at Doha airport, with justice John Halley determining that the five Australian women bringing the case could instead refile their claims for damages against Matar, a Qatar Airways-owned subsidiary engaged by the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority (QCAA) to run Doha airport.
The five women initiated legal action against the airline in 2022, later adding the QCAA and Matar to the case over the October 2020 incident, seeking damages over alleged “unlawful physical contact”, false imprisonment and mental health impacts, including depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
They were among more than a dozen passengers who were escorted off the Sydney-bound Qatar Airways plane by armed guards as authorities searched for the mother of a newborn baby found abandoned in a plastic bag at Hamad international airport. The infant survived.
The women were taken to ambulances on the tarmac and some were forced to submit to invasive examinations that sought evidence they had recently given birth. The lawsuit claims one passenger was forced to undergo a strip-search holding her five-month-old son.
In a judgment on the various interlocutory applications made in the case handed down on 10 April, Halley found that Qatar Airways should not have to go to trial for the case because its employees could not have influenced the actions of the Qatari police who boarded the planes to remove the women.
Halley also agreed with the QCAA’s view that, as it was owned by the Qatari government, it could claim sovereign immunity from the court’s jurisdiction.
He ordered the women, who have been represented by Marque Lawyers, to pay the costs of Qatar Airways and the QCAA.
Halley found that as Matar had not proven that its employees or contracted security personnel did not give any specific directions to the women during the incident, the women could refile against Matar.
However, on Wednesday afternoon the women lodged an appeal against Halley’s judgment, hoping to pursue Qatar Airways and the QCAA directly.
Marque Lawyers’ Damian Sturzaker said the decision to lodge the appeal had been made “after carefully reviewing the court’s judgments”.
“The applicants remain committed to pursuing their claims against Qatar Airways, Matar and the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority for the events which occurred on 2 October 2020 on the tarmac of the Doha international airport,” Sturzaker said.
after newsletter promotion
The initial legal action was launched in an Australian court because both Australia and Qatar are parties signed up to the Montreal convention, which governs airline liability around the world. Under the convention, a lawsuit can be brought before the courts in the jurisdiction where a passenger lives.
Halley found the applicants were not able to bring a claim against the airline under the Montreal convention, as he held that the incident was not in the course of embarking or disembarking.
Qatar Airways was contacted for comment.
The judgment and application of an appeal follow months of controversy over the Australian government’s refusal of Qatar Airways’ push to increase flights to Australia.
The five women who are part of the lawsuit earlier wrote to the transport minister, Catherine King, urging her to reject the airline’s request. King said their experience was a factor in her decision.