E.I. and A.I. disputes continue in Federal Court

The Equine Influenza (E I) class action is ready to be filed in the Federal Court.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn is in the final stages of its investigations and the proposed class action will be filed by the end of the year provided there is sufficient interest in the action from affected individuals and businesses.

The class action will be filed as a ‘closed class’, which means those who haven’t registered and signed the retainer / funding agreement will not be able to participate in the action.

The registration form can be viewed at:   www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/equineinfluenza

Equine influenza (EI) occurred for the first time in Australia in August 2007 and became the largest exotic animal disease event in our history.  It brought the racing and breeding industries to its knees but the Commonwealth has denied liability.

The Artificial Insemination (A.I.) case is also due to be resolved in the near future.  The Federal Court heard closing submissions by counsel late last year before Justice Alan Robertson.

Former leviathan bookmaker Bruce McHugh took legal action claiming the refusal to register horses bred via artificial insemination breaches the Trade Practices Act.

Under international rules, only horses that are conceived by “direct cover”, where the stallion directly inseminates the mare, can be registered, which allows them to race and breed.  That rule is being defended by six co-respondents – Australian Turf Club, Victoria Racing Club, Australian Racing Board, Thoroughbred Breeders Australia, Racing Information Services Australia and Australian Stud Book.

Delegates at the 2012 International Breeders’ meeting in England earlier this year gave their unanimous support to TBA by reaffirming its opposition to artificial insemination.

Australian horses would be boycotted internationally if Justice Robertson rules against the industry.  And, apart from reducing the stallion gene pool, it would also open the way for embryonic transfer and cloning from superior mares.

The co-respondents have stated the case is really about the industry having the ability – morally and legally – to set the rules by which it is governed.