Jump to content

mikeymike100

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    2,928
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mikeymike100

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Agreed, but I think 5 years in prison would be fair, considering the violence exhibited against the cops!
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 ??
  7. This time they actually have a good case and I hope they win big!
  8. 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.
  9. And then some!!!
  10. The security costs for President Trumps 4 day visit was around 14 MILLION pounds, seems a lot but putting in perspective, the UK taxpayer is shelling out over 8 MILLION pounds per day on illegals, so its a drop in a very big ocean! .
  11. Starmer looked like an errant schoolboy, petrified and so he should , being told that invading swarms of illegals is killing Europe and the UK, but the best was when Trump talked about Sadiq Khan being a 'nasty person', watching Starmer squirm was PRICELESS!
  12. Buddy golf is casual, social golf among friends, often with flexible rules and a focus on enjoyment. Trump is far more associated with this format, playing frequently with celebrities, politicians, and business associates:
  13. Love the sarcasm..good one, but You could be right!!
  14. So you think the fact that Europe and the UK is being invaded by illegal, so called migrants, is a good thing?
  15. The HUFFPOST.....................
  16. Starmer has his head in the sand, sadly!
  17. I did read up on the case. Lucy Connolly was charged under Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 for publishing or distributing threatening or abusive written material with the intent to stir up racial hatred, or where such hatred was likely to be stirred up given the circumstances. This stemmed from her X post on July 29, 2024, which called for mass deportation and setting fire to hotels housing immigrants, viewed 310,000 times in 3.5 hours. The problem is the law is very ambiguous, on purpose. The law in question, particularly Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 is ambiguous because terms like “insulting material,” “intent,” and “likely” to stir up racial hatred are inherently open to interpretation. Insulting material: The Act doesn’t precisely define “insulting,” leaving it to courts to decide based on context. In Lucy Connolly’s case, her use of “b*******” and calling for arson against hotels housing immigrants was deemed insulting and abusive, as it dehumanized a racial group. But what’s “insulting” can vary—courts rely on a “reasonable person” standard, which critics argue is subjective and risks overreach. Proving intent to stir up racial hatred is tricky. The law allows conviction if intent is present or if the material is likely to cause hatred, even without intent. Connolly’s defense claimed she was venting anger, not inciting, but the court inferred intent from the post’s violent language and timing post-Southport attack. This dual threshold (intent or likelihood) lowers the bar for prosecution, making it vague. The “likely to stir up racial hatred” clause is again ambiguous! No one was incited to do anything, no one was physically harmed. The sentence, 31 months, was a total disgrace!
  18. I thought so too, but apparently the judge disagrees!
  19. Maybe if other countries leaders were more harsh with illegals they wouldn't have so many problems, like the UK does!
  20. "Police in Hatyai have apprehended a 62-year-old Japanese national, known as Mr. Yasuda, for public indecency" Seems odd??
  21. I returned to Thailand 3 days ago, at Suvarnabuhmi Apt, BKK, I had filled in the TDAC got the QR code, went to the IO, gave him my passport, with boarding pass, I have a retirement visa and a Multi re-entry permit, scanned my fingerprints, photo, he stamped me in, no mention of TDAC? Was it a waste of time?? Or do they already know when they check on the computer?
×
×
  • Create New...