Dhi22 v Qatar Airways Q.C.S.C (No 2)

The case Dhi22 v Qatar Airways Q.C.S.C (No 2) involved a dispute between the applicants and Qatar Airways and the QCAA. The applicants sought damages for alleged bodily injuries and violations of their rights during a security check at Doha Airport. They claimed that they were subjected to invasive examinations without consent by personnel from Qatar Airways and the QCAA, resulting in physical and psychological harm. The applicants sought relief under the Montreal Convention, and also claimed for negligence, assault, battery, and false imprisonment. Qatar Airways and the QCAA filed applications for summary judgment and sought to strike out certain paragraphs of the applicants' claims, arguing that the applicants had no reasonable prospects of success.

The court had to decide several legal issues, including whether the applicants' claims could be brought against Qatar Airways under the Montreal Convention, and whether the exclusivity principle precluded the applicants from bringing a claim in negligence. The court also had to determine the meaning of "in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking" as per the Montreal Convention, and whether the applicants could establish that the alleged accident took place during such operations. Additionally, the court needed to assess the applicants' claims against the third respondent for assault, battery, and false imprisonment, and whether the applicants had pleaded sufficient facts to hold the third respondent liable.

The court concluded that the applicants had no reasonable prospects of establishing that the alleged invasive examinations took place during the operations of embarking or disembarking the aircraft, and therefore the claims under the Montreal Convention could not proceed. The court found that the exclusivity principle applied to the claims brought against Qatar Airways, precluding the applicants from bringing a claim in negligence. The court also determined that the applicants' claims against the third respondent were insufficiently pleaded as they contradicted unanswerable or unanswered evidence of a fact. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Qatar Airways and dismissed the claims against it. The court stood over the QCAA's application to set aside service pending consideration of amended pleadings and granted leave for the applicants to file revised amended statements of claim.

The final orders of the court were that the interlocutory application seeking leave to amend the further amended statement of claim was dismissed. Judgment was entered in favor of Qatar Airways in relation to the claims against it. Leave was granted to the applicants to file and serve a second further amended statement of claim consistent with the reasons for judgment. Personal service of these amended pleadings on the third respondent was dispensed with, and they could be served by email. The third respondent's application to set aside service was stood over pending a case management hearing. The costs of the first respondent were to be determined at the case management hearing, while the costs of the applicants and the third respondent in relation to the third respondent's interlocutory application were reserved.