Felipe Massa’s legal fight and the role of the courts in professional sporting disputes: can the law rewrite history?
The long-running ‘Crashgate’ saga took a surprising turn last month, which will lead the legal row arising from it – over the rightful winner of the 2008 Formula 1 World Championship – to the highest court in England.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the next step in Felipe Massa’s case against Formula One Management Limited, Bernie Ecclestone, and the FIA, leapfrogging the Court of Appeal. The decision appears to have come about based on the principle that the highest court in the land should hear the question, as it is a matter of general public importance.
The three parties are seeking to appeal the decision of the High Court that allows Massa’s claims for damages from them to proceed to a full trial, after some of his other claims (such as various declarations, including that he ‘would have’ won the 2008 F1 Drivers’ World Championship if it was not for Crashgate) had been dismissed. This hearing will follow the court’s order that the defendants pay £250,000 towards Massa’s legal costs to date.
Read our full article on this topic at racefans.net (here), which covers:
- What is Massa claiming (and why)?
- What the High Court was asked to do and what it decided.
- Why Massa cannot rewrite the 2008 title – but can still claim damages.
- What is the legal concept of ‘unlawful means conspiracy’ and why does it matter for F1 insiders?
- What a Supreme Court appeal really means.
- How a potential Massa victory could impact how we approach sporting disputes.