Australian Women Win Right to Sue Qatar Airways Over Invasive Airport Searches

A major legal update has emerged for the five Australian women who experienced invasive searches at Doha’s Hamad International Airport in October 2020. As of July 24, 2025, the Federal Court of Australia has ruled that these women can proceed with their lawsuit against Qatar Airways and the airport operator, MATAR. This decision marks a turning point in a case that has drawn global attention, affected diplomatic relations, and raised important questions about passenger rights, airline responsibilities, and the treatment of women in international travel settings.

This update explains what has changed, who is affected, the effective dates, required actions, and the broader implications for pending and future cases. It also provides practical guidance for those following the case or who may be affected by similar incidents.

Summary of What Changed

Federal Court Ruling (July 24, 2025):
The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, led by Chief Justice Debra Mortimer, Justice Angus Stewart, and Justice Stephen Stellios, has unanimously overturned a previous 2024 ruling that had blocked the Australian women’s claims against Qatar Airways. The judges found that the earlier summary dismissal was premature. They ruled that the key legal question—whether the invasive searches happened during the process of embarking or disembarking, which is central under the Montreal Convention—must be decided at a full trial, not dismissed early.

Who Can Be Sued:
– The women are now allowed to sue both Qatar Airways and MATAR (the airport operator).
– The case against the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority (QCAA) remains dismissed because QCAA is a foreign state entity and is protected by sovereign immunity.

Compensation Sought:
The plaintiffs are seeking damages for mental distress, assault, and false imprisonment. They have described severe psychological impacts, including depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, as a result of the incident.

Legal Costs:
Qatar Airways and MATAR have been ordered to pay the women’s legal costs for the appeal.

Next Steps:
The case will now proceed to a full trial in the Federal Court of Australia. However, the trial is not expected to begin before the end of 2025.

Who Is Affected

Directly Affected:
– The five Australian women who were subjected to the invasive searches are the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. Their identities remain confidential for legal reasons.
– Qatar Airways and MATAR are the defendants and face potential liability for the alleged actions.

Indirectly Affected:
– Other women from the UK and New Zealand were also subjected to similar searches, but only the Australian women are part of this lawsuit.
– The broader airline industry, airport operators, and international travelers are watching the case closely, as it may set a precedent for how similar incidents are handled in the future.

Diplomatic Impact:
– The incident has already affected diplomatic relations between Australia 🇦🇺 and Qatar 🇶🇦. The Australian government cited the 2020 incident as a reason for blocking Qatar Airways’ bid for additional flights into Australia.

Effective Dates

• Incident Date: October 2, 2020 – The invasive searches took place at Doha’s Hamad International Airport.
• Initial Lawsuit Filed: 2021 – The five Australian women filed suit against Qatar Airways, MATAR, and QCAA.
• Previous Ruling: April 2024 – Justice John Halley dismissed the claims against Qatar Airways and QCAA.
• Current Ruling: July 24, 2025 – The Federal Court of Australia overturned the previous dismissal, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
• Expected Trial Date: Not before late 2025 – The full trial is not expected to begin until the end of 2025 at the earliest.

Required Actions

For the Plaintiffs:
– The five Australian women, represented by Marque Lawyers and Damian Sturzaker, will prepare for a full trial. They will need to provide evidence and testimony regarding the events of October 2, 2020, and the impact on their lives.

For Qatar Airways and MATAR:
– Both entities must prepare to defend themselves in court. They are also responsible for paying the legal costs of the appeal.

For Other Affected Passengers:
– At this time, only the five Australian women are parties to the lawsuit. Other women who were affected but are not part of this case may wish to seek legal advice about their options.

For International Travelers:
– Travelers should be aware of their rights when flying internationally, especially in situations involving state security actions. It is important to know what protections exist under international agreements like the Montreal Convention.

For Legal and Human Rights Advocates:
– This case may serve as a reference point for future legal actions involving passenger rights, airline liability, and state actions at airports.

Background and Context

Incident Details:
On October 2, 2020, after a newborn was found abandoned in an airport bathroom, Qatari authorities removed women from at least 10 flights, including the five Australian plaintiffs. Many women were taken to ambulances on the tarmac and subjected to non-consensual, invasive gynecological examinations. The authorities were trying to identify the baby’s mother, but the methods used have been widely criticized as violating basic rights and dignity.

Initial Legal Proceedings:
In 2021, the five Australian women filed a lawsuit against Qatar Airways, MATAR, and QCAA. In April 2024, Justice John Halley dismissed the claims against the airline and QCAA. He reasoned that the Montreal Convention, which governs airline liability for international flights, did not apply because the searches did not occur during embarking or disembarking. He also found that QCAA was immune from prosecution as a foreign state entity.

Appeal Process:
The women, represented by Marque Lawyers and Damian Sturzaker, appealed the decision. They argued that the searches were part of the disembarkation process and that both the airline and airport operator had a duty of care to protect passengers.

Federal Court Ruling:
On July 24, 2025, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia ruled that the earlier dismissal was premature. The judges said that the question of whether the searches were part of the disembarkation process should be decided at trial, not dismissed early. This means the women’s claims against Qatar Airways and MATAR can now be fully heard in court.

Implications for Pending Applications and Broader Impact

For the Plaintiffs:
– The five Australian women now have the chance to present their case in full. If they are successful, they may receive compensation for the harm they suffered.
– The case also gives them a public platform to seek accountability for what happened.

For Qatar Airways:
– The airline faces both reputational and financial risks. The case has already led to diplomatic consequences, with the Australian government blocking Qatar Airways’ bid for more flights into Australia.
– The outcome may force Qatar Airways to review its policies and procedures for handling incidents involving state authorities and passenger rights.

For MATAR (Airport Operator):
– MATAR will need to defend its role in the incident and may face similar risks as Qatar Airways.

For Other Airlines and Airport Operators:
– The case could set a legal precedent for how airlines and airport operators are held responsible for actions taken by state authorities during the embarkation or disembarkation process.
– Airlines may need to review their protocols for responding to law enforcement requests and protecting passenger welfare.

For International Travelers:
– The case highlights the importance of knowing your rights when traveling internationally. It also shows how legal protections can vary depending on where and when an incident occurs.
– Travelers may wish to familiarize themselves with the Montreal Convention, which sets rules for airline liability in international travel. More information about the Montreal Convention can be found on the Federal Court of Australia’s official website.

For Human Rights and Women’s Rights Advocates:
– The case is seen as a critical moment for women’s rights and the accountability of both state and corporate actors in international travel.
– It may lead to calls for clearer international standards on how passengers, especially women, are treated during security incidents.

For Pending and Future Cases:
– The ruling means that similar cases may be more likely to proceed to trial, rather than being dismissed early.
– It may encourage other affected passengers to come forward or seek legal advice.

Key Stakeholders and Statements

Plaintiffs’ Legal Team:
Damian Sturzaker of Marque Lawyers said the women are relieved and pleased to finally have the opportunity for a full hearing after a “very long and stressful struggle.”

Qatar Airways and MATAR:
Neither entity has issued a recent public statement in response to the July 2025 ruling. Previously, Qatar’s government expressed “sincerest apologies” for the distress caused by the incident.

Australian Government:
The incident has had ongoing diplomatic consequences. The Australian government cited it as a reason for blocking Qatar Airways’ bid for more flights into Australia.

Judiciary:
The appellate judges emphasized that the complex legal questions—especially about the Montreal Convention’s applicability—require a full trial to resolve.

Policy Implications and Practical Effects

For International Air Travel:
– The case may set a new standard for airline liability in incidents involving state authorities and passenger rights during transit.
– Airlines and airports may need to update their training and protocols to better protect passengers.

For Airport Security and State Actions:
– The case highlights the legal complexities when state security actions intersect with international aviation law and passenger protections.
– It may prompt governments to review how security procedures are carried out, especially when they involve foreign nationals.

For Legal Experts:
– The ruling is seen as a significant affirmation of access to justice for airline passengers.
– It tests the boundaries of airline liability under international conventions.

For the Aviation Industry:
– The outcome may prompt airlines and airports to review how they handle law enforcement requests and ensure passenger welfare.

Procedural Details and Next Steps

1. Trial Preparation: The case will move forward to a full trial in the Federal Court of Australia. The timeline for hearings is not yet set but is not expected before late 2025.
2. Scope of Claims: The trial will address whether the invasive searches were part of the disembarkation process and if Qatar Airways and MATAR are liable under the Montreal Convention and Australian law.
3. Potential Outcomes: If the women win, they may receive compensation for mental and physical harm. The case could also influence future airline and airport operator practices regarding passenger treatment in similar situations.

Expert and Stakeholder Perspectives

Legal Experts: Many see the ruling as a strong statement about the importance of access to justice for airline passengers and a test of how far airline liability extends under international law.

Human Rights Advocates: The case is viewed as a key moment for women’s rights and for holding both state and corporate actors accountable in international travel.

Aviation Industry: The outcome may lead airlines and airports to review their protocols for handling law enforcement requests and ensuring passenger welfare.

Future Outlook and Pending Developments

• The case will likely draw more international attention as it moves to trial, with possible effects on similar cases worldwide.
• Depending on the trial’s outcome, there may be calls for clearer international standards on passenger rights and airline responsibilities in cases involving state security interventions.
• The case continues to affect diplomatic relations between Australia 🇦🇺 and Qatar 🇶🇦, especially regarding aviation agreements and regulatory oversight.

Official Contacts and Resources

• Federal Court of Australia: www.fedcourt.gov.au
• Marque Lawyers (Plaintiffs’ legal representatives): www.marquelawyers.com.au
• Qatar Airways Customer Service: www.qatarairways.com
• Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: www.dfat.gov.au

For the latest updates, check official court dockets and trusted news outlets as the trial progresses.

Caveats and Limitations

• The case is ongoing, and no final judgment on liability or compensation has been made as of July 26, 2025.
• Only the five Australian women are parties to this lawsuit; other affected passengers have not joined this legal action.
• The exact number of women subjected to the searches is unclear, but the incident affected passengers from at least 10 flights.

As reported by VisaVerge.com, this case stands as a powerful reminder of the importance of passenger rights, the responsibilities of airlines and airport operators, and the need for clear legal protections in international travel. The outcome will be closely watched by travelers, legal experts, and human rights advocates around the world.

If you are following this case or have concerns about your rights as an international traveler, consider reviewing the Montreal Convention and staying informed through official government resources such as the Federal Court of Australia. This will help you understand your rights and the steps you can take if you ever face a similar situation.

In summary, the Federal Court’s July 2025 ruling gives the five Australian women the chance to have their claims heard in full. The case will shape how airlines, airport operators, and governments handle similar incidents in the future, and it highlights the ongoing need for strong protections for all passengers, especially women, in international travel.

Learn Today

Invasive Searches → Non-consensual, intrusive body examinations conducted by authorities, raising privacy and legal issues for travelers.
Montreal Convention → An international treaty governing airline liability for passenger injury or damages during international flights.
Sovereign Immunity → Legal protection that prevents lawsuits against foreign states or their governmental entities.
Federal Court of Australia → Australia’s national court that handles significant federal legal matters, including international aviation disputes.
Damages → Monetary compensation sought in lawsuit for harm, such as mental distress and false imprisonment.

This Article in a Nutshell

The Federal Court of Australia ruled that five women subjected to invasive airport searches can sue Qatar Airways and MATAR. This decision challenges airline liability under the Montreal Convention and highlights international passengers’ rights, signaling a critical legal turning point expected to impact future aviation and human rights cases worldwide.
— By VisaVerge.com