Loading advertisement
Logo
  • Shop Now
  • Help
  • Handicapping & PPs
  • Entries
  • Results
  • News & Info
  • Royal Ascot
  • Breeding
  • Harness
  • Help
  • Shop
  • DRF en Español
  • DRF Recommends
  • Bet on Sports
  • DRF Pro Services
  • DRF Form Finder
  • Horse Watch
Track Pages
Horse Racing News
Stakes Races
DRF TV
Race of the Day
International Racing
Beyer Speed Figures
DRF En Espanol

Australian court allows appeal on artificial insemination ruling

DRF Breeding Staff|Apr 16, 2013

An Australian court case regarding the use of artificial insemination in Thoroughbred breeding has been revived, following the appeal of a December decision against the practice in regards to the breed’s registry.

The ruling was appealed by Bruce McHugh, a former chairman of the Sydney Turf Club, who initially filed suit against the Australian Turf Club in 2011 claiming that the prohibition of artificial insemination was an illegal trade restraint for his planned breeding operation and that it violated the country’s competition and consumer act. Additionally, he said that live-cover breeding was dangerous and expensive, preventing him from getting into the business.

After a four-month trial and a year of deliberation, the ban was upheld on December 19 by Federal Court Justice Alan Robertson. Had it been allowed, Australia would have become the first jurisdiction to allow artificial insemination in its Thoroughbred racing and breeding industries. Other flat-racing breeds—Quarter Horses and Arabians—already allow artificial insemination.

The appeal was filed six weeks after the originally posted January 31 deadline, but McHugh’s attorney argued that he was not given proper time to file the appeal due to a number of factors, including the Christmas and summer holidays and review of the 369-page judgment. As reported by Bloomberg News, Federal Court Justice Peter Jacobson said Tuesday that the delay was not enough deny the appeal, given that the case was “of significance to the Thoroughbred industry.”

In his initial ruling, Robertson said that the plaintiff had to show that the trade restraint was unreasonable when it was established for it to be illegal. However, when the rule was imposed several decades ago, it was reasonable at the time, the judge deduced. When arguing for an appeal, McHugh’s attorney said that Robertson’s ruling did not consider advances in technology, including DNA testing, and also argued that restraint of trade cannot be indefinite.

DRF Headlines

View All 
Stay Updated Now

Get the latest racing news, expert picks, and exclusive analysis delivered to your inbox.

Sign Up for Newsletter

Interested in News?

Google News

Download DRF app on your smartphone.

Download appDownload app

Events

  • Royal Ascot
  • Hong Kong
  • More

News

  • Race of the Day
  • Track Pages
  • Latest News
  • Breeding
  • More

Tracks

  • Belmont at the
Big A
  • Churchill Downs
  • Gulfstream Park
  • Laurel Park
  • Woodbine

Handicapping & PPs

  • DRF Classic PPs
  • Formulator PPs
  • TimeformUS PPs
  • Daily Racing
Program
  • DRF Picks
  • More
Drf en espanolPurchase ppspreference center
Drf en espanolPurchase ppspreference center

© 2026 Daily Racing Form.  All rights reserved.

Careers
Help
Terms
Privacy

© 2026 Daily Racing Form.  All rights reserved.