mikeymike100

So will this affect the exchange rate, re make the pound weaker? The UK economy is struggling, with zero growth between July and September 2024 and contractions of 0.3% in April and 0.1% in May 2025. A weakening jobs market and rising unemployment (4.7% annually between March and May 2025) prompted the rate cut to stimulate growth. However, rising inflation (3.6% in June 2025, expected to peak at 4% in September) and potential US trade tariffs add uncertainty. If investors perceive the UK economy as faltering, the pound could face downward pressure despite the short-term boost?

Good news, at least Trump is trying to stop the war, let us hope he succeeds.

Yes!!

Welcoming 2 million tourists, I wonder if they all left?

The AFC’s jurisdiction in this case stems from Article 33 of the Montreal Convention, which allows passengers to file claims in their home jurisdiction (here, Australia) for incidents during international carriage. This treaty overrides general limits on extraterritorial jurisdiction for civil claims against airlines, as it governs global aviation liability. The Convention applies to claims against airlines, not state authorities, for specific harms (death, bodily injury, or financial loss) during international flights, including embarking or disembarking. The AFC can hear such cases because the plaintiffs are Australian residents, and the incident occurred during an international flight to Sydney. For criminal acts like violence or abuse abroad, you’re correct that Australian courts typically lack jurisdiction unless specific extraterritorial laws apply (e.g., for Australian citizens committing crimes like pedophilia). However, this is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal case, seeking damages for negligence, assault, and false imprisonment, not prosecution of Qatari authorities Qatari authorities, not Qatar Airways staff, forcibly removed the women from a Sydney-bound flight (QR908) at Hamad International Airport after a newborn was found abandoned in a bathroom. Armed police escorted the women off the plane and subjected them to non-consensual gynecological examinations by a nurse in ambulances on the tarmac, aiming to identify the mother. The plaintiffs (five Australian women among 13 on QR908) claim Qatar Airways is liable under the Montreal Convention for bodily injury (physical and psychological harm, including PTSD and depression) during disembarking. They also allege negligence, assault, and false imprisonment against Qatar Airways and Matar (the airport operator), but not the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority (QCAA), which was dismissed due to state immunity. Qatar Airways’ Role: The airline’s staff did not conduct the searches or directly detain the women. However, the plaintiffs argue that Qatar Airways: Facilitated the Incident: The crew allowed or did not prevent Qatari authorities from removing passengers, potentially failing in their duty of care to protect passengers during disembarking. Failed to Intervene: The airline had a responsibility to ensure passenger safety, and its inaction during the authorities’ actions may constitute negligence. Context of Disembarking: The incident occurred on the tarmac, arguably during the disembarking process, as passengers were still under the airline’s control before entering the terminal. The Montreal Convention does not require the airline to directly cause the injury, only that an “accident” (unexpected event) occurs during disembarking, causing bodily injury. The plaintiffs argue that the forced removal and examinations were an “accident” under the airline’s control, as they occurred during the disembarking process. Airline’s Duty of Care: Courts have held that airlines have a duty to ensure passenger safety during embarking/disembarking, even if third parties (e.g., ground handlers or authorities) are involved, if they act as the airline’s agents or under its operational control. The Full Federal Court found it plausible that Qatar Airways’ inaction (e.g., not challenging the authorities’ actions) could constitute a failure of duty, warranting a trial

The AFC’s jurisdiction in this case is grounded in the Montreal Convention (1999), an international treaty governing airline liability for passenger injuries during international carriage, to which both Australia and Qatar are signatories. Article 17 of the Convention holds carriers liable for damages caused by death or injury to passengers on board an aircraft or during embarking/disembarking. Article 33 allows lawsuits to be filed in the passenger’s home jurisdiction, which is why the women can sue in Australia Qatar Airways, as a state-owned but commercially operating entity, is subject to the AFC’s jurisdiction under the Montreal Convention, which overrides claims of state immunity in this context. The ICJ is irrelevant here, as it handles state-to-state disputes, not individual claims against airlines. While Qatar Airways (Australia) is not a separate entity, the airline’s broader operations are at stake, increasing the likelihood of a settlement to protect its Australian market. The case’s legal foundation and the documented trauma of the plaintiffs suggest it is not frivolous. Unlike the Parliament House case, this lawsuit operates within a clear international legal framework. A trial will clarify Qatar Airways’ and Matar’s liability, but a settlement without admission of guilt remains a strong possibility given the airline’s commercial interests.

And Chinese?

Qatar Airways cannot simply ignore the Australian Federal Court's (AFC) ruling, as it is a legally binding decision within Australia’s jurisdiction, where the airline operates and has assets. The Full Federal Court’s ruling on July 24, 2025, overturned a prior dismissal, allowing the five Australian women to sue Qatar Airways and Matar, the operator of Hamad International Airport, for the 2020 incident involving non-consensual examinations. The court found that the applicability of the Montreal Convention—specifically whether the incident occurred during "embarking or disembarking"—requires a full trial to determine, and Qatar Airways was ordered to pay the appeal costs.Ignoring the ruling could lead to serious consequences, including: Qatar Airways could face court-ordered damages, injunctions, or other remedies if found liable at trial. Non-compliance might result in enforcement actions, such as asset seizures or fines in Australia. Defying the court could further harm Qatar Airways’ reputation, especially in Australia, a key market where it has recently expanded through a 25% stake in Virgin Australia. The Australian government has previously blocked Qatar Airways’ expansion plans, partly citing the 2020 incident. Ignoring the court could prompt further regulatory scrutiny or restrictions on its operations. International. As a signatory to the Montreal Convention, Qatar is bound by its principles, which allow lawsuits in the passenger’s home jurisdiction (Australia in this case). Ignoring the AFC could complicate Qatar Airways’ compliance with international aviation law. However, Qatar Airways could explore legal avenues to challenge the ruling, such as appealing to Australia’s High Court, though no indication of this has been reported. Alternatively, they might seek a settlement to avoid a trial, as the women’s lawyer, Damian Sturzaker, has noted their openness to resolution outside court. Ignoring the ruling outright, however, is not a practical option given the legal, financial, and reputational risks in Australia and globally.

Agreed, but I think 5 years in prison would be fair, considering the violence exhibited against the cops!

Initially, in April 2024, Justice John Halley dismissed the case against Qatar Airways, ruling the incident occurred outside the aircraft and was not under the airline’s control, thus not covered by the Montreal Convention. However, on July 24, 2025, the Full Federal Court overturned this, finding that whether the incident fell within the scope of "embarking or disembarking" is a matter for trial. The court’s decision allows the women to pursue claims against Qatar Airways, arguing the airline’s responsibility for passenger safety during the flight process, even if the actions were carried out by state authorities. The lawsuit also targets Matar, the airport operator, for its potential role in the incident.

Incorrect, The case is now expected to proceed to trial in the Australian Federal Court, with the women’s lawyer, Damian Sturzaker, stating they are relieved and seeking compensation and accountability for their trauma.

Problem is if it was in Qatar the odds would be stacked against them probably, Qatar courts would have a Qatari judge, is he gonna be fair and unbiased ??

This time they actually have a good case and I hope they win big!

Yes very poor, here is a brief explanation! Five Australian women are suing Qatar Airways and Matar, the operator of Hamad International Airport, following an incident on October 2, 2020, at Doha airport. The women, part of a group of over a dozen passengers, were forcibly removed from a Sydney-bound Qatar Airways flight by armed guards and subjected to non-consensual physical examinations, including invasive gynecological searches, in ambulances on the tarmac. This was triggered by the discovery of a newborn baby abandoned in a bathroom, as authorities sought to identify the mother. The women are seeking damages for unlawful physical contact, false imprisonment, negligence, and mental health impacts, including depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

And then some!!!