Felipe Massa v Formula One Management Limited & Ors

On a reverse summary judgment application, a claimant need only show a real prospect of establishing the pleaded case. The court may closely examine evidence, but must avoid resolving contested facts as at trial.

Under Limitation Act 1980, a concealed fact is relevant to a right of action where the cause of action is incomplete without it. Reasonable diligence is triggered only by circumstances putting the claimant on notice that something may have gone wrong.

A sporting body may arguably owe investigative obligations arising from its regulatory framework or an implied term, but those obligations may be owed to members rather than an individual participant. Contractual breaches owed to third parties can nevertheless constitute unlawful means in a conspiracy claim. Declaratory relief will not be granted where it lacks practical legal utility.

The claimant, a former Formula One driver, brought claims against Formula One Management Ltd, Bernard Ecclestone and the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile. He alleged that information about a deliberate crash at the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix had been concealed, preventing a timely investigation and affecting the 2008 World Drivers’ Championship.

The claims included breach of contract and French-law tort claims against the FIA, English-law claims for inducing breach of contract and unlawful means conspiracy, and applications for declaratory relief. The defendants applied to strike out the claims and/or obtain reverse summary judgment under Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

The issues concerned investigative obligations, the claimant’s failure to appeal a 2009 WMSC decision, limitation, and the utility of the declarations sought.

1. The court dismissed the pure breach of contract claim governed by French law, the standalone French-law tort claim, and the claims for declaratory relief. The CPR Part 24 application otherwise failed. The CPR rule 3.4 application failed except in relation to the declaratory claims.

2. The claimant had a real prospect of establishing that the FIA possessed, or owed, an obligation connected with preserving fairness, equity and integrity in motor sport and investigating serious wrongdoing. The obligation was arguable both from interpretation of the Sporting Code and from an implied term under the relevant provisions of the Code Civil. The court did not decide the underlying French-law issue.

3. The claimant had no real prospect of showing that the investigative obligation was owed directly to him. He was not an FIA Member, and the regulatory regime gave teams, rather than individual drivers, the relevant protest rights. The pure contract claim therefore failed. The obligation was nevertheless capable of being owed to FIA Members.

4. A breach of contract owed by the FIA to another person could constitute unlawful means in an English-law conspiracy claim. The unlawful means need not themselves be actionable at the claimant’s suit. The same analysis applied to the inducement claim.

5. The failure to appeal the September 2009 WMSC decision did not establish, on a summary basis, a break in causation or failure to mitigate. The outcome of the hypothetical appeal was uncertain.

6. The alternative pure contract and standalone French-law tort claims were statute-barred. For the English-law conspiracy and inducement claims, however, the claimant had a real prospect of showing that essential facts remained concealed and that he could not reasonably have inferred the gist of the alleged conspiracy, or been put on notice requiring further investigation, before the relevant period.

7. Declaratory relief is discretionary and generally requires a real and present dispute concerning legal rights, practical utility, and proper representation of affected interests. The proposed declarations would not alter the FIA’s decision or jurisdiction and would principally serve reputational or publicity purposes. They therefore had no real prospect of being granted.

8. The surviving claims required reformulation of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim. The claimant was directed either to abandon the standalone French-law tort claim or obtain further French-law advice on the application of the Non-Cumul Rule before seeking permission to re-re-amend.