Streaming Lawsuit in Qatar: Montreal Convention Appeal and Settlement

Five Australian women who were removed from a Qatar Airways flight in Doha in October 2020 and subjected to invasive physical examinations settled their lawsuit against the airline and the airport operator in June 2026. The Qatar Airways lawsuit over the Doha airport searches had spent years working through the Federal Court of Australia, was dismissed against the airline in 2024, revived on appeal in 2025, and resolved before trial on terms that were not made public.¹

What Happened at Hamad International Airport

On October 2, 2020, staff at Hamad International Airport in Doha found a newborn girl abandoned in a trash bin in a departures-lounge bathroom.² Airport officials ordered women off at least ten departing flights and directed them to undergo physical examinations to determine whether any of them had recently given birth.³

One of those flights was a Qatar Airways service to Sydney carrying 18 women, including 13 Australians. Armed guards boarded the aircraft and escorted women off the plane and into ambulances parked on the tarmac.⁴ Four of the five women who later sued were examined inside the ambulances, three of them invasively. None consented, and none were told what was happening or why. Women from the United Kingdom and New Zealand were subjected to searches on other flights, but they are not parties to the Australian case.⁵

Who Was Sued and On What Claims

In 2021, the five Australian women filed suit in the Federal Court of Australia against three defendants: Qatar Airways, Matar (the operator of Hamad International Airport), and the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority. They sought damages for battery, assault, negligence, and false imprisonment, citing lasting psychological harm including depression and PTSD.⁵ They were represented by Damian Sturzaker of Marque Lawyers.⁶

The Montreal Convention Question

The case turned on a treaty. Three of the plaintiffs brought claims under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention, which governs airline liability for bodily injury sustained on board an aircraft or “in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.”⁷ The women argued their journey had never ended: they were pulled off at gunpoint, examined in ambulances beneath the aircraft, and returned to the plane. On that reading, the examinations happened during embarkation or disembarkation, and the airline could be liable.⁶

Dismissal in 2024

In April 2024, Justice John Halley ruled against the women on their claims against Qatar Airways. He found the airline could not be liable under the Montreal Convention because its employees had no ability to influence the actions of Qatari police or medical personnel, and he concluded the case had “no real prospect of success” against the airline.⁴ Halley also ruled the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority was immune from suit as a foreign state entity, though he allowed the case to continue against Matar.⁵

The 2025 Appeal

The women appealed. On July 24, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Full Federal Court unanimously overturned the dismissal in DHI22 v Qatar Airways Group QCSC (No 1) [2025] FCAFC 91, heard by Chief Justice Debra Mortimer and Justices Angus Stewart and James Stellios.⁷

Justice Stewart, writing for the court, found the lower court had “erred” by dismissing the claims at such an early stage. On the embarkation question, the Full Court held Halley’s reading was potentially “too narrow” and that there was no “sufficiently high degree of certainty” to resolve the issue without a trial.⁴ Once the normal process of embarkation had begun and no conventional disembarkation had been completed, the court reasoned, it was at least arguable that the passengers remained within the scope of Article 17.⁸

The court likewise held it was an “error to conclude at this stage of the proceeding that Matar’s duty of care cannot possibly extend to the circumstances in and around the ambulance.” The appeal against the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority was dismissed; the court upheld its immunity under the Foreign States Immunities Act on the grounds that its actions were “in pursuit of public functions of the State of Qatar.”⁴ Qatar Airways and Matar were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Sturzaker said his clients were “thrilled with the outcome” and noted the women “do genuinely continue to bear the scars of not only what happened on that evening, but the fact that there’s been no apology, that there’s been no compensation, and that the case has been fought over a number of years.”⁶

The 2026 Settlement

The parties did not go to trial. As of June 2, 2026, the lawsuit against Qatar Airways and Matar had been resolved by settlement.¹ Terms and any monetary amounts were not publicly disclosed.

Qatar’s Own Response and Criminal Case

The Australian civil suit ran on a separate track from Qatar’s own handling of the incident. After Australia’s then-Foreign Minister Marise Payne called the searches “grossly disturbing” and demanded a full report,⁹¹⁰²⁵ None of this went to the civil claims for damages the Australian passengers pursued in their own courts.

The Blocked Flights Decision

The incident also shaped a separate government decision often confused with the lawsuit. In July 2023, Australian Transport Minister Catherine King rejected a bid by Qatar Airways to add 28 weekly flights to major Australian cities.¹¹¹²¹³ Qatar Airways Senior Vice President Matt Raos called the airport incident a “one-off” and said the airline was “completely committed to ensuring nothing like this ever happens again,” though the suing passengers said the airline never responded to their complaints or apologized.¹⁴

1
Lawyerly. Qatar Airways Settles With Passengers in Strip Search Case
2
Al Jazeera. Qatar Identifies Parents of Baby Girl Dumped in a Trash Bin
3
The Guardian. Women on 10 Flights Subject to Medical Examinations at Doha
4
The Guardian. Court Grants Leave for Australian Women to Sue Qatar Airways Over Alleged Invasive Physical Examinations
5
BBC. Australian Women Win Right to Sue Qatar Airways Over Strip Searches
6
CNN. Australia Qatar Airways Examination Case
7
Six St James Hall. DHI22 v Qatar Airways Group QCSC
8
Norton White. Full Federal Court Holds Qatar Airways Passengers Searched at Doha Can Pursue Damages
9
Human Rights Watch. Women Reportedly Subjected to Forced Gynecological Exams in Qatar
10
Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Qatar Announcement on Airport Incident
11
ABC News. Catherine King Rejected Qatar Airways Bid on Same Day as Strip Search Letter
12
Reuters. Australia Says Qatar Strip Searches of Women 2020 Factor in Blocking Extra Flights
13
Al Jazeera. Australia Says Qatar’s Strip Searches of Women Factor in Blocking Flights
14
Quartz. Qatar Airways Executive Says Invasive Gynecological Examinations Were a One-Off Incident