3 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

There are daily protests showing support for Hamas and a Palestinian state in the UK. The PM just announced his intention to recognise the Palestinian State. Should I not fly BA either?

 

Daily protests by paid lefties makes Qatar justified to fund terrorism? Let us know where you think this mythical state of Palestine is

7 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

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.

Qatar Airways (Australia) is definitely involved, but Qatar Airways is a Government owned enterprise of Qatar and they are not bound by any Fed Court decision. It is a long bow to say that a breach of an international convention can be tried in an Australian Court - the ICJ Court under the UN is setup for that purpose and I am sure.  Qatar as owner of Qatar Airways will clearly claim Fed Court has no jurisdiction - nor IMO do they have any. But Qatar Airways (Australia) could be tried - if they are found to have acted inappropriately - but highly unlikely to be able to be convicted of a crime.  The big fish will be negotiating as this matter will put at threat Qatar Airways operating in Australia - I am sure they will seek to settle without any admission of guilt. Either way - I am sceptical this is a reasonable case and still believe it to be politically and financially motivated.  Same as that women who alleged rape in Parliament House - she got a huge payout and walked away happy and became political.  I fear this is more of the 'Me Too' BS.      

15 hours ago, Sheryl said:

They were looking for physical signs of having recently delivered a baby. Easily determined with brief exam.

 

Had they gone about it more delicately and respectfully, explaining the situation , asking for consent, conducting the exams gently with plenty of privacy (and fully clothed except for removal of panties, with plenty of drapes etc, and kind reassuring female nurse/doctor), would have been nowhere near as traumatic. But sounds like they were rough and brutal in manner, not unusual among police in that part of the world.

 

Another option is they could have just gotten mouth swabs for DNA, would take time but would ultimately prove if any of them were the mother.

 

Could have given the female patients the option of either (1) a gyn exam to immediately clear them  and let them go on their way OR (2) DNA cheek swab and have to wait a few days for results before continuing their journey.

 

Had it all been done politely with tact and sensitivity, both the law enforcement  needs and the rights and dignity of the women could have been met. 

 

Not sure how much (if anything) the airline could have done about this,though,  as it was a police action. 

 

Hopefully the respective ambassadors lodged a complaint with the Qatari government. 

I totally agree! 

17 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Qatar Airways (Australia) is definitely involved, but Qatar Airways is a Government owned enterprise of Qatar and they are not bound by any Fed Court decision. It is a long bow to say that a breach of an international convention can be tried in an Australian Court - the ICJ Court under the UN is setup for that purpose and I am sure.  Qatar as owner of Qatar Airways will clearly claim Fed Court has no jurisdiction - nor IMO do they have any. But Qatar Airways (Australia) could be tried - if they are found to have acted inappropriately - but highly unlikely to be able to be convicted of a crime.  The big fish will be negotiating as this matter will put at threat Qatar Airways operating in Australia - I am sure they will seek to settle without any admission of guilt. Either way - I am sceptical this is a reasonable case and still believe it to be politically and financially motivated.  Same as that women who alleged rape in Parliament House - she got a huge payout and walked away happy and became political.  I fear this is more of the 'Me Too' BS.      

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.

On 8/2/2025 at 10:28 AM, mikeymike100 said:

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.

The Australian Federal Court does not have legal standing to try alleged acts of violence or personal abuse committed in another country - unless the perpetrator is an Australian citizen and committed the alleged acts that are specifically covered under Australian Laws for overseas jurisdictions (pedophilia etc.).

The Montreal Convention covers death/injury and financial loss caused by an airline through negligence (accident or lost luggage etc).  What exactly did Qatar airlines do - was it them that detained the women and strip searched them?  If so then they are liable - but the story indicates that the acts were done by the Qatar authorities - therefore the airline was not negligent. Or are you saying anyone travelling with Qantas who is detained and injured by the Thai Authorities in Thailand can sue Qantas when they return to Australia?? 

14 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

The Australian Federal Court does not have legal standing to try alleged acts of violence or personal abuse committed in another country - unless the perpetrator is an Australian citizen and committed the alleged acts that are specifically covered under Australian Laws for overseas jurisdictions (pedophilia etc.).

The Montreal Convention covers death/injury and financial loss caused by an airline through negligence (accident or lost luggage etc).  What exactly did Qatar airlines do - was it them that detained the women and strip searched them?  If so then they are liable - but the story indicates that the acts were done by the Qatar authorities - therefore the airline was not negligent. Or are you saying anyone travelling with Qantas who is detained and injured by the Thai Authorities in Thailand can sue Qantas when they return to Australia?? 

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

5 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

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 women are claiming damages done by Qatar Authorities in Qatar, against Qatar Airways who did not commit any act of negligence or error.  However, because Qatar Airways did not refuse to comply with the Qatar Authorities, they were possibly negligent?  What a load of total political BS.  The politics behind the women being allowed to sue Qatar Airways in the AFC, and the personal financial motives, are atrocious and an insult to international law.  

 

This all happened in 2020 and the Authorities in the Qatar Airport were prosecuted (I dont know outcome).  Before you continue with the outrage - which I do understand and agree with somewhat - many women were 'searched' - over 100 I believe.  A newborn baby was abandoned in the airport toilets and the Qatar Authorities believed the Mother was one of the passengers who had boarded or was boarding planes. In Qatar that is a very very serious crime - it is attempted murder to abandon a new born baby.  The Qatar Authorities have since found out who the mother is and have issued an arrest warrant - she had left the country.   

 

There is no doubt what was done to the women was unacceptable - in Australia or any civilised country - but it was done by Qatar Authorities in Qatar not Qatar Airways - and the Qatar Government has apologised to all the women involved - I have no idea regarding if any compensation has been offered.  But I do know that this case should not have proceeded - it was rejected by the AFC in April 2024 for obvious legal reasons, and it was previously denied in the lower Courts. IMO this has become very political and is now all about women's rights worldwide. But IMO the women should be seeking 'remedy' through ICJ not through AFC - but politics is at play here big time and that you cannot understand that shows your ignorance of the laws. 

 

If they somehow win, that would set a legal precedent which would mean that any illegal act under Australian Law committed in any country within the confines of the airport against an Australian, whether legal in that country or not, could be tried against the airline who flew that person into that airport.  Forcing legal liability on the airlines to be responsible for such a situation, when that act is outside of their control (eg. raped in airport toilets) is a ridiculous and erroneous legal precedent.  What airline will carry an Australian passengers into any country if they are legally liable for anything that happens to them in that other airport??  There is a point when the airline can no longer be held liable for what happens to its passengers - acts by the authorities in another country is surely well past that point of liability.  

 

As you have said, Qatar Airways Australia would probably prefer to settle this matter and reach a settlement. But I think the politics behind this may seek to force Qatar itself to be found guilty and be forced to pay compensation, and they are squeezing Qatar Airways to push their Owner to comply. I guess how far this goes in the AFC will depend upon how things are negotiated though the 'back channels. I suspect that if Qatar passed laws prohibiting the medical invasive inspection of women without their permission or a Court Order, the case would be 'allowed' to fade away.