It’s official: the biggest court case in the history of Formula 1 is going the distance.
Felipe Massa has won his battle to take Formula One Management, its former head Bernie Ecclestone and the FIA to a full trial, alleging that he was the victim of “skullduggery” after one of F1’s most notorious scandals, which cost him the 2008 World Championship.
The former Ferrari driver is claiming £64m in damages but London’s High Court has blocked him from seeking a declaration that he was the rightful 2008 champion, rather than Lewis Hamilton.
Massa alleges that former F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone and then-FIA president Max Mosley had been involved in “a deliberate concealment of a conspiracy” by not investigating 2008’s Crashgate scandal, where Nelson Piquet Junior deliberately crashed at the Singapore Grand Prix, helping his team-mate, Fernando Alonso, win the race.
It is claimed that officials had enough information to act at the time but failed to do so.
Last month, Massa sat through a pre-trial hearing where the defendants attempted to have the legal action struck out on several grounds, including that it was too late to mount a case over a title awarded 17 years ago, and that it should have been brought within six years of the Crashgate scandal emerging.
In a judgement published today, Mr Justice Jay disagreed, concluding that Massa “does have a real prospect of proving at trial all the components of his unlawful means conspiracy”.
His verdict partly rested on an interview given by Ecclestone in 2023, where the former F1 supremo said that he had known that the crash was deliberate soon after the Singapore Grand Prix, and long before it was made public; that he and Mosley had decided not to act to protect the sport; and that the race “probably” should have been cancelled.
If the race had been cancelled and the season had continued in the same way, then Massa would have been world champion.
The extra information provided by Ecclestone was found to have reset the legal clock, giving Massa a further six years to make his claim, and so the case will go to a full trial, next year at the earliest.
However, Massa’s attempt to force the FIA to issue a statement saying that he should have been the 2008 F1 champion has failed. Mr Justice Jay said that, if the case succeeded, fans would be given the impression that the title had been stripped from Lewis Hamilton and given to Massa — a power that the court does not have.
“The present claim cannot of course rewrite the outcome of the 2008 Drivers’ World Championship, but if declaratory relief along the lines sought were granted that is how Mr Massa would present his victory to the world and it is also how it would be perceived by the public,” the judgement said. “The declaration comes too close in my view to impinging on the right of the FIA to govern its own affairs.”
The case could expose the behind-the-scenes dealings at the top of F1 during the Mosley and Ecclestone era. High drama has already been served up at the pre-trial session, as the defendants attempted to get the case thrown out.
“Mr Massa’s claim is as torturous as it overly ambitious,” said the FIA in a defence document, which also said that “Mr Massa’s claim conspicuously overlooks a catalogue of his own errors” that contributed to him losing the ’08 title.
Read on for everything we know so far.
Background: How ‘Crashgate’ blew up
Piquet Jr’s career was on the rocks – and Renault F1 bosses forced him into extreme action
Grand Prix Photo
The 2008 Formula 1 world championship has, in retrospect, turned out to be one of the most controversial in history.
Felipe Massa lost the title by one point to Lewis Hamilton at the season finale in Brazil, after the latter passed Timo Glock heading into the last corner of the last lap of the race.
The FIA’s legal defence has slammed Felipe Massa’s 2008 title conspiracy claim as the ‘Crashgate’ hearing kicked off in London
The following season it emerged that several races prior, at the 2008 Singapore GP, Renault’s Nelson Piquet Jr had crashed deliberately so as to manipulate the race in favour of his team-mate Fernando Alonso, who ultimately won. Piquet Jr had been persuaded to do so by his team boss Flavio Briatore and technical director Pat Symonds, who feared the team’s parent company would quit the sport if they didn’t indicate an upturn in performance.
Massa was leading the Marina Bay race when the incident occurred, but a botched pitstop in reaction to the resulting safety car saw the Brazilian drive off with his fuel hose still attached. The fallout of that saw Massa finish the race down in 13th place and out of the points.
Rumours of ‘Crashgate’ gathered pace in 2009, coming to a head when Piquet Jr was sacked mid-season by Renault. He immediately went to the FIA and reported what happened, which prompted an investigation.
The upshot was that team boss Flavio Briatore was handed a lifetime ban from FIA-sanctioned events, and Pat Symonds a five-year one. Both sentences were eventually reduced. Piquet Jr was granted immunity for his part in the investigation. Alonso was found not to be involved.
Since then an idea has slowly gained traction that the results from Singapore ’08 should have been annulled (taking away the six points from Hamilton’s third-placed finish), and that therefore Massa should have been champion.
Massa believes he’s the rightful 2008 champion
Grand Prix Photo
The Brazilian has espoused this idea himself over the years, but now says he didn’t have the evidence to push the FIA into acting on the matter or make a court claim, and was advised by Ferrari’s legal team not to do anything.
That all changed following a bombshell interview from former Formula One Management boss Bernie Ecclestone.
The Crashgate case reignited
The Bernie Ecclestone biographical documentary Lucky was released in 2023, looking back on the ups, downs and controversies during his time as F1 supremo.
In a promotional interview for the film Ecclestone was asked about Crashgate and his reply changed everything. It has been seized upon by Massa and his legal team as key evidence in their case.
Speaking to the F1-Insider website, Ecclestone contradicted what was recorded in the ’09 FIA report, which claimed that there wasn’t enough solid evidence to act on Piquet Jr’s rumours. In this new interview, the former grand prix boss says there was in fact was enough to do something, meaning F1 history could have been very different.
“Max Mosley [the late FIA president] and I were informed about what had happened in the race in Singapore during the 2008 season,” said Ecclestone.
Piquet Jr went to the FIA after he was fired by Renault
Grand P
“Piquet Jr had told his father Nelson [the three-time F1 champion] that he had been asked by the team to deliberately drive into the wall at a certain time in order to trigger a safety car phase and so on to help his team-mate Alonso. Piquet Jr was worried about his contract extension, so he was under a lot of pressure and agreed.”
Ecclestone then says: “We decided not to do anything for now” because he and Mosley wanted to “protect the sport and save it from a huge scandal”.
“We had enough information in time to investigate the matter. According to the statutes, we would probably have had to cancel the race in Singapore under these conditions.”
Ecclestone’s assertion that himself and Mosley should and could have acted, and that the race results should have been wiped, have been used by Massa’s legal team as the basis for this case and what the Brazilian has described as ‘justice’ – as well as £64m in damages.
UK law stipulates a six year limitation period for contract claims like Massa’s, which would normally mean that he’s a decade too late in making his claim.
But there are some exceptions including where relevant facts have been “deliberately concealed by the plaintiff”. As a result of Ecclestone’s interview, this exception “is fulfilled”, according to the pre-trial judgement.
Massa’s claim for ‘justice’
Massa would have been ’08 title winner if Singapore was annulled
Grand Prix Photo
In the wake of the Ecclestone’s quotes, Massa decided to take action. He employed one of world sport’s most formidable lawyers, Nick De Marco, who made a name for himself in football before moving into motor sport to defend IndyCar star Alex Palou after he was sued by McLaren for backing out of his contract (a case awaiting judgement).
“[I’m] looking forward for the justice,” said Massa on the grid at Brazil this year. “I don’t deserve what happened for me to anybody, anybody that is looking [out] for the sport.
Felipe Massa’s lawyers have claimed that Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley tried to conceal their full knowledge of the 2008 Crashgate aftermath
“We did what we were supposed to do with the lawyers, and now we wait for the decision.”
That decision has now come. Massa can sue the racing’s governing body, the FIA, series promoter Formula One Management and its former head Bernie Ecclestone for £64m in damages.
It’s important to note that Massa is not asking for the record books to be changed. Whatever the judgement, Lewis Hamilton will not lost one of his seven world titles.
In the pre-trial hearing, Massa’s team said he “has a real prospect of succeeding on all of the grounds” claiming that the FIA breached its contractual obligations to the driver in not investigating the incident, and that “Mr Ecclestone’s actions induced the FIA’s breaches of contract.”
It continues: “The co-ordination between Mr Ecclestone (whose conduct can be attributed to FOM) and Mr Mosley (whose conduct can be attributed to the FIA) amounted to an unlawful means conspiracy (the Conspiracy).”
Massa’s lawyer De Marco attempted to drive home the conspiracy point when addressing the court during the pre-trial session.
The FIA report in 2009 into ‘Crashgate’ said F1 bosses had heard Piquet Jr “may have crashed” the previous year
Getty Images
“After many years that interview is the first time it became apparent to Mr Massa that there had been a deliberate concealment of a conspiracy that was known,” De Marco said.
“The defendants are very eager to prevent the court from examining their serious wrongdoing.”
The barrister continued by claiming that the FIA report had been deliberately careful in its wording in saying that the defendants had heard the Piquet crash ‘may have been deliberate’ – more akin to rumour rather than solid evidence — so as to not implicate Ecclestone, Mosley or anyone else involved with F1 or the governing body.
“That was a lie, that’s the opposite to the truth!” he thundered. “The people who wrote this report, Ecclestone and Mosley, knew they had sufficient evidence but were worried about the consequences so covered it up.”
F1, FIA and Bernie Ecclestone’s position – and their legal arguments and what the judge said
Bernie Ecclestone’s bombshell 2023 interview led to trial
Grand Prix Photo
The legal teams of the Bernie Ecclestone, F1 and the FIA hit back at Massa’s claims in the pre-trial, with the governing body’s representatives saying the driver’s claim is “as torturous as it overly ambitious.”
“These Applications are made because this is a claim which will fail,” says FOM’s legal team. “In light of this, it is not in anyone’s interests, least of all Mr Massa’s, for there to be further prolongation of his disappointment at losing the 2008 F1 Drivers’ Championship by just one point to Mr Hamilton (and indeed at never becoming world champion).”
Ecclestone’s team added “Mr Massa seeks these declarations for publicity reasons”.
The defendants made their case for the trial to be thrown out on four grounds, pointing out the ineligibility of his claims in each one. We’ve included what the judge said in response.
Limitation Ground
The defendants put forward the argument that his claims are ‘time-barred’ by the Limitation Act 1980 and Article 2224 of the French Civil Code i.e. that after six years for the former and five years for the latter, any claim is ‘statute-barred’ and therefore invalid.
What the Justice Jay said: “The judge found that the conspiracy and inducement claims are not out of time because Mr Massa would have a real prospect at trial of showing that he lacked essential facts to bring the claims until Mr Ecclestone’s 2023 interview.
“While a reasonable person in Mr Massa’s position knew of the failure to investigate following the publication of the WMSC decision in September 2009, inferring a conspiracy to cover up the truth on the part of Messrs Ecclestone and Mosley was very far from clear, not least because the WMSC report was inconsistent with such a conspiracy.
“Furthermore, there was no or insufficient information to trigger Mr Massa’s duty to exercise reasonable diligence under s. 32 of the Limitation Act 1980. The interview allowed him to ‘join up the dots’ and bring the claims.”
Contract Ground
That no idea of a ‘contract’ between FIA and Massa existed i.e. that in the circumstances the governing body obliged to do anything to further a claim from the Brazilian at the time (which he didn’t make anyway).
What the judge said: “Mr Massa has a real prospect at trial of persuading the Court that the FIA had a power, and arguably a duty in these circumstances, to investigate serious wrongdoing based on its role as guardian of the sport and various provisions in the FIA Sporting Code.
“This duty was arguably triggered in the circumstances of this case because in late 2008 the FIA, through Mr Mosley, was in possession of information which had not entered the public domain.
“However, this duty was owed to FIA Members, not Mr Massa personally. Therefore, his breach of contract claim failed. The High Court’s analysis of this aspect of the Contract Ground entailed a detailed review of complex provisions of French law.
“The separate tort claim under French law against the FIA barely survives. The judge expressed serious doubts and directed Mr Massa to either ‘abandon that claim now’ or obtain further expert advice.
“The Court held that Mr Massa has a real prospect of success on the two English-law tort claims. The inducement of breach and conspiracy claims survive because they do not require Mr Massa to have a directly enforceable contractual right.”
Time Limit Ground
That Massa failed to take any action on the matter at the time that would have enabled him to be recognised as world champion.
What the judge said: “The judge was not persuaded by the Defendants’ arguments in relation to this ground and rejected them swiftly.”
Declarations Ground
That Massa’s claim to be recognised as champion is essentially pointless.
What the judge said: “The Court refused declaratory relief. The declarations sought come too close to impinging on the sovereign right of the FIA to govern its affairs and lack ‘practical utility’. Mr Massa’s remedy is limited to a claim in damages.”
UK judge decides Massa’s Crashgate case deserves a full trial
Despite the efforts of the defendants’ legal teams, Mr Justice Jay has decided that Massa’s case deserves a full trial, on the basis that there’s a enough evidence to test whether Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley chose to deliberately not act when they had sufficient information about it at the time.
“Mr Justice Jay accepted that Mr Massa has a real prospect at trial of persuading the Court that the FIA had a power, and arguably a duty in these circumstances, to investigate serious wrongdoing based on its role as guardian of the sport and various provisions in the FIA Sporting Code,” said a court-issued summary of the judgement.
“This duty was arguably triggered in the circumstances of this case because in late 2008 the FIA, through Mr Mosley, was in possession of information which had not entered the public domain.
“The Court held that Mr Massa has a real prospect of success on the two English-law tort claims. The inducement of breach and conspiracy claims survive because they do not require Mr Massa to have a directly enforceable contractual right.”
The judge also highlighted that it is only the evidence from Ecclestone’s 2023 interview which has allowed him to make this claim, saying the defence’s argument that Massa had all the information he needed to act at the time was not valid.
“In terms of what was available in the public domain, there was material from September 2009 and then around 2011 indicating that Mr Mosley knew about the Piquet Sr intelligence in 2008.
“However, that material also points to Mr Mosley deciding, on taking his own counsel, that without a statement from Mr Piquet Jr, the FIA could do nothing. There is nothing in these materials to indicate that Mr Mosley discussed the matter with Mr Ecclestone, and the book and interview citations set out above rather suggest that he did not.”
Crashgate’s big witnesses – who will testify?
It’s highly likely some of the biggest names in F1’s recent history could testify in this case, with many of the named in the evidence. Here are just a few who could find themselves in the dock.
Felipe Massa
Ferrari’s 11-time grand prix winner, who missed out on the 2008 F1 world title by a single point to Lewis Hamilton. He says Crashgate means the ’08 Singapore GP results should have been annulled, and that he should have been the rightful champion.
Bernie Ecclestone
It’s the controversial 2023 interview from former F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone which prompted this case, and the 95-year-old could well be called to give his side of the story. Only two years ago he was given a suspended 17-month sentence for a £650m tax fraud.
Jean Todt
Massa has said in his witness statement that his former Ferrari boss Jean Todt was convinced at the time that the crash was deliberate. Would also former FIA president give evidence on the controversy former by his old adversary Flavio Briatore?
Stefano Domenicali
The current F1 boss was Jean Todt’s No2 at Ferrari at the time, and was witness to Todt claiming the Piquet Jr crash was deliberate. Could the Liberty man really find himself testifying in court?
Flavio Briatore
Crashgate was just yet another bombshell in the colourful live of current Alpine boss Briatore, who has presided over Enstone in its various guises as Benetton and Renault too. Massa alleges that ‘Flav’ lied when he asked him in early 2009 if Piquet Jr’s shunt was deliberate.
Pat Symonds
Cadillac’s now-technical director formed the plot with Briatore for Piquet’s deliberate crash, but in the 2009 enquiry first tried to blame it on the driver before confessing. Would he testify again?
Nelson Piquet Jr
Massa’s countryman was threatened with losing his job if he didn’t carry out the Singapore crash. When Massa asked him about it in mid-2009, ‘Nelsinho’ denied it all, but then went to the FIA to admit what he’d done after Renault sacked him shortly before the ’09 Belgian GP.
Nelson Piquet Sr
The claimant’s case rests to a large degree on the fact that that F1 legend Nelson Piquet Sr knew about the crash, and immediately told the late FIA official Charlie Whiting about it straight after the race, who passed this information on to Mosley and Ecclestone at the time.
What’s really at stake
Massa says he’s seeking “justice”
In addition to the £64m in damages, the case could set a precedent for drivers who feel that they are wronged to seek redress in court.
Although the Brazilian says he doesn’t want to rewrite the record books, success in the case would cast a shadow over the 2008 result — if the court finds that officials covered up a scandal and, in this way affected the championship outcome.
That may open a door which could be given the final push by someone else.
The 2021 Abu Dhabi controversy between Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen is one such instance, as is the 1988 Japanese GP, when Ayrton Senna was disqualified for cutting a chicane, handing Alain Prost the world title.
The FIA has annulled the results of an entire world championship event once before. The results of the WRC’s 1986 San Remo Rally were annulled after the FIA decided that stewards had wrongly disqualified the Peugeot works team for a technical infringement.
Felipe Massa’s F1 ‘Crashgate’ trial: The story so far
