Travel Capitalist Ventures Expands Check Size to $10 Million to Deepen Emerging Market Conviction
Boutique Travel VC raises investment cap from $1.5M to $10M to lead rounds and support portfolio companies through growth Travel...
Read moreDetailsThe women aged 33 to 75 were among dozens of female passengers ordered off aircraft on the tarmac of Hamad International Airport on October 2, 2020, after a newborn baby was found in a rubbish bin inside the terminal.
With no explanation, the women were then forced into ambulances at gunpoint where they were subjected to internal examinations without their consent.
In a lengthy decision, Federal Court judge John Halley found the women’s case had no grounds under the Montreal Convention that governed international aviation.
Justice Halley said “in no view did the invasive examinations of the (women) take place ‘on board the aircraft’ or in the course of embarking or disembarking the aircraft”.
“The exclusivity principle in the Montreal Convention therefore precludes the applicants advancing this claim and it must therefore be summarily dismissed or struck out.”
The court also considered the women’s claim against the owner of Hamad International Airport, MATAR, finding there was “no reasonable prospects of success” given they sought to attribute liability to the airport for the conduct of Qatari police officers and a nurse.
Justice Halley’s judgment found there was no evidence to refute MATAR’s evidence that the “armed and unarmed persons in dark uniforms and the female who appeared to be a nurse were not agents of the airport, or acting under the airport’s direction or control”.
“No attempt is made to identify the agents beyond these general assertions,” Justice Halley said.
He went on to say the women could file an amended statement of claim by early next month, limited to claims against MATAR for the conduct of its employees.
Qatar Airways cannot be sued by Australian women who were subjected to invasive physical examinations in Doha, the Federal Court has found.
The women always faced an uphill battle in their fight for justice and an apology from Qatar for their treatment, with much resistance against the case in a “foreign jurisdiction”.
Damian Sturzaker of Marque Lawyers, who was acting for the women on a pro bono basis, said they were looking very carefully at the reasons given by the judge in relation to sovereign immunity and the Montreal Convention.
“We’ll be looking at that and exploring what options there are in relation to appeal,” Mr Sturzaker said.
“It’s not the end. Insofar as the current court decision, there’s been a narrowing of the case, but the fundamental allegations remain the same: they are that the acts that were committed were illegal.”
He pointed out that the perpetrator, who was the head of airport security, was found guilty by the Qatari courts and jailed.
The matter was thought to be among the reasons for the federal government’s decision to deny an application from Qatar Airways to add another 28 flights a week into Australia.
Transport Minister Catherine King informed the women involved in the case last year that the government would not grant more bilateral air rights to Qatar, after they wrote to her highlighting their plight.
Qatar Airways was continuing to seek additional flights into Australia although it’s understood the process has not advanced since talks late last year.
The decision to refuse Qatar Airways more flights was condemned by many in the tourism and aviation industry, as well as state governments who saw the refusal as a blow to their visitor economies.
