(DOHA) Five Australian women won a major legal step in their suit against Qatar Airways and the operator of Hamad International Airport, after an Australian appellate court ruling cleared the way for a full trial over alleged invasive searches carried out in October 2020. The July 24, 2025 decision by a panel of three judges allows claims of airline liability, negligence, assault, and false imprisonment to proceed against Qatar Airways and the airport operator, MATAR. The court also ordered Qatar Airways to pay the women’s appeal costs, while confirming the case against Qatar’s Civil Aviation Authority cannot continue due to foreign state immunity.
The lawsuit centers on an incident at Hamad International Airport, often ranked among the world’s best airports, when an abandoned newborn was found in a terminal bathroom. Following the discovery, hundreds of women were reportedly taken off planes and subjected to non-consensual gynecological or intimate searches, some in ambulances on the tarmac. The five Australian plaintiffs say the ordeal caused profound mental harm, including depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. The women, who are anonymous for legal reasons, said they felt relief after a “very long and stressful struggle to bring this to court,” according to their legal team.
Qatar Airways did not immediately respond to media questions after the ruling. Marque Lawyers partner Damian Sturzaker, who represents the women, said, “Our clients endured a traumatic experience on that night in Doha, and they deserve to have their day in court and compensation for their suffering.” He noted the case will return to Australia’s Federal Court for detailed hearings.
Appellate ruling clears path to trial
The ruling reverses an earlier dismissal by Federal Court Justice John Halley, who found the claims had no reasonable prospect of success. He had reasoned the searches did not occur during embarkation or disembarkation, which could limit airline liability under the Montreal Convention, the global treaty that sets rules for international air carrier responsibility.
The Full Court disagreed, stating there was “no sufficiently high degree of certainty” that the searches fell outside the treaty’s scope and that these questions should be decided at trial, not at an early stage.
Key elements of the decision include:
– Claims against Qatar Airways and MATAR will be tested at trial, including whether the airline can be held responsible for acts carried out by airport personnel or authorities during an international journey.
– The case against the QCAA is dismissed due to foreign state immunity, which protects foreign states and certain state entities from being sued in Australian courts.
– Qatar Airways must pay appeal costs incurred by the women.
– A full hearing is unlikely in 2025, pointing to litigation that could stretch into 2026 or later.
This appellate court ruling matters for travelers because it keeps open a legal path to hold airlines and airport operators to account when personal privacy and bodily autonomy are at stake.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the decision underscores that complex Montreal Convention questions often require a full hearing, rather than a quick dismissal.
Legal context: Montreal Convention and state immunity
At the heart of the dispute is the Montreal Convention, which covers airline liability for injuries or damage that occur in the course of international travel. A core legal question is whether a passenger’s “journey” includes time spent in the airport during security or other procedures ordered by airport staff or authorities, and whether an airline can be liable for what occurs during that period.
The appellate judges did not decide the Montreal Convention issue; they ruled the question is too complex for the case to be thrown out early. This sets the stage for a detailed trial over:
– Whether the alleged strip searches fall within the “embarkation or disembarkation” phases or another part of the international journey.
– Whether the airline has a duty of care during those moments, even if airport or government staff carried out the acts.
– How far liability extends when state actors are involved, and whether airline contracts, notices, and policies can limit exposure in such cases.
By contrast, foreign state immunity remains a firm barrier for the QCAA, ending those claims in Australian courts. This split outcome shows how passengers may still seek remedies from corporate entities—like an airline or airport operator—even when claims against state bodies are blocked.
Human impact and policy stakes
The reported events on October 2, 2020 in Doha drew swift global condemnation and strained diplomatic ties between Australia and Qatar. For the women involved, the case is about redress after a deeply personal violation.
The plaintiffs say they were taken from aircraft at Hamad International Airport, made to remove underwear, and examined without consent. Some examinations took place in ambulances on the tarmac. They seek damages for the mental health toll they link to the searches, including depression and trauma symptoms.
From a policy perspective, the case could reshape how airlines and airport operators prepare for rare but high-risk incidents:
– Carriers may review training for station managers and crew, update agreements with airport operators, and adjust written notices to passengers.
– Airport operators could face closer scrutiny of protocols when safety crises intersect with privacy rights.
– Legal scholars see this lawsuit as a potential marker for airline liability when state immunity prevents suits against government bodies.
Possible trial outcomes and implications:
1. If the Montreal Convention applies, airlines could face broader exposure for harm tied to on-the-ground events, including those driven by airport staff or police.
2. If the treaty does not cover such acts, passengers may need to rely on other legal theories, which vary and can face hurdles across jurisdictions.
For travelers, the outcome may influence how airlines and airports explain procedures during emergencies and how carriers support passengers after distressing events, including offering mental health resources and clearer complaint pathways.
Evidence and industry focus
The trial will likely examine chain-of-command and factual detail closely:
– Who requested the searches?
– Who carried them out?
– What did the airline know and do at the time?
Those details will shape whether courts see the airline as responsible for the acts, the setting, the supervision, or none of the above. Clear judicial findings could allow carriers to adjust policies with more confidence; a narrow ruling could leave the debate unresolved and litigated case by case.
What travelers and airlines should expect next
With the appellate court’s door now open, the case returns to the Federal Court for case management and, later, a full hearing. The schedule points beyond 2025, with 2026 a realistic window for trial given the complexity. Further appeals after the trial judgment are likely, especially if the court sets new guardrails for airline responsibility during airport-led actions.
Practical steps:
– Passengers who believe they were harmed should keep records: flight details, boarding passes, medical notes, and written accounts.
– Airlines should review station response plans for serious incidents inside terminals, including who gives instructions, how instructions are documented, and how to protect passenger privacy.
– Airport operators should assess how emergency responses balance safety with consent, and ensure medical checks are conducted, recorded, and supervised.
– Legal teams on both sides will likely seek expert testimony on the Montreal Convention’s scope and on industry practice at major hubs like Hamad International Airport.
Marque Lawyers has directed interested parties to the Australian Federal Court for official updates on filings and schedules. Media outlets including SBS News and 7NEWS Australia have followed the case since the appellate decision. Qatar Airways’ corporate information is available at Qatar Airways.
The broader context is sobering: this case stems from a night when a newborn was found abandoned and officials sought to find the mother with urgency. That urgent aim cannot erase the duty to respect personal rights.
The trial will test whether corporate defendants met that duty—and, if not, what damages are due. For now, the appellate court ruling ensures the five women will be heard in full. The court’s focus on a trial, rather than early dismissal, means testimony and documents about the 2020 events should come into the public record. Human rights groups say this transparency is essential to rebuild trust and to help prevent similar events.
As litigation moves forward, passengers flying through Doha will continue to use an airport praised for efficiency and service. Yet the Hamad International Airport case is a reminder that even at top-rated hubs, emergency responses must be careful with people’s bodies and dignity. Carriers, airports, and regulators will be watching the Federal Court’s next steps closely, because the final judgment could shape practice well beyond Qatar, across major international hubs where airlines and airport authorities work side by side.
What is clear today is this: the women have won the right to press their claims; Qatar Airways and MATAR face courtroom tests of their duties during an international journey; and questions under the Montreal Convention will be answered only after a full airing of facts. The path to a final answer will likely be long, but the next chapter—in open court—has been set.
This Article in a Nutshell
An appellate court on July 24, 2025 cleared five Australian women to sue Qatar Airways and MATAR over alleged invasive October 2020 searches. Claims for airline liability, negligence, assault and false imprisonment proceed; QCAA claims were dismissed for sovereign immunity. Montreal Convention jurisdictional questions remain for trial, which likely extends into 2026.
