“the Court is not only entitled but obliged to do this, not with a view to resolving disputed versions of events, but with a view to assessing whether there is any real substance in the [pleaded] case.”
“7. After the race, the sequence of events described above, giving rise to such an obvious benefit for Renault F1 and Mr Alonso, had raised suspicion and there was a degree of speculation that Mr Piquet Jnr’s crash had been deliberate. Rumours continued to circulate in the weeks that followed the race. Mr Piquet Jnr’s father, Nelson Piquet Snr, indicated privately to an FIA official that the crash may have been deliberate, though at that time Mr Piquet Jnr was still under contract with Renault F1 and it was understood that he would not be prepared to make a statement to the FIA. The FIA considered its position and concluded that it did not have sufficient evidence at that time to launch a detailed investigation.”
“Until Bernie Ecclestone’s interview in March 2023 or later, I did not know that Piquet Sr told Charlie Whiting … that his son Nelsinho’s crash was on purpose in 2008.”
“[Mr Ecclestone and Mr Mosley were] informed during the 2008 season about what happened during the race in Singapore, Piquet Jr had told his father Nelson … that he had been asked by the team to deliberately drive into the wall at a certain point in order to trigger a safety car phase and thus help his team-mate Alonso … [they] decided not to do anything for the time being. We wanted to protect the sport and save it from a huge scandal … [Mr Ecclestone stated that he] used every last power of persuasion I had with my former driver [Mr Piquet Sr] to get him to keep calm for the time being. … There was a rule back then that a world championship classification was untouchable after the FIA awards ceremony at the end of the year. … We had enough information in good time to have investigated the matter. According to the Rules, however, we would probably have had to annul the race in Singapore in those circumstances … That means that, for purposes of the World Championship standings, it would never have taken place. Then Felipe Massa would have been world champion and not Lewis Hamilton.”
“The object of the FIA shall be to establish a union between its members, chiefly with a view to: 1) Maintaining a world-wide organisation upholding the interests of its membership in all international matters concerning automobile mobility and tourism and motor sport. 2) Promoting freedom of mobility through affordable, safe, and clean motoring, and defending the rights of consumers when travelling by automobile. 3) Promoting the development of motor sport, enacting, interpreting and enforcing common rules applicable to the organization and running of motor sport events. 4) Promoting the development of the facilities and services of the Member Clubs, Associations and Federations of the FIA and the co-ordination of reciprocal services between Member Clubs for the benefit of their individual members when travelling abroad. 5) Exercising jurisdiction in respect of disputes of a sporting order and any disputes which might arise between its Members, or in relation to any of its Members having contravened the obligations laid down by the Statutes, the International Sporting Code and the Regulations. 6) Preserving and conserving all documents concerning world motoring in order to trace its History.”
“… shall be the sole international body governing motor sport, that is to say it shall hold the exclusive right to take all decisions concerning the organization, direction and management of International Motor Sport.”
“Terms of Reference of the World Motor Sport Council (1) To see to the enforcement of the Statutes and the International Sporting Code.”
“1. The … FIA shall be the sole international sporting authority entitled to make and enforce regulations for the encouragement and control of automobile competitions and records, and to organise FIA International Championships and shall be the final international court of appeal for the settlement of disputes arising therefrom … 2. So that the above powers may be exercised in a fair and equitable manner the FIA has drawn up the present “International Sporting Code” (the Code). The purpose of this Code and its appendices is to encourage and facilitate international motor sport. It will never be enforced so as to prevent or impede a competition or the participation of a competitor, save where the FIA concludes that this is necessary for the safe, fair or orderly conduct of motor sport.”
“Any of the following offences in addition to any offences specifically referred to previously, shall be deemed to be a breach of these rules: a) All bribery or attempt, directly or indirectly, to bribe any person having official duties in relation to a competition or being employed in any manner in connection with a competition and the acceptance of, or offer to accept, any bribe by such an official or employee. b) Any action having as its object the entry or participation in a competition of an automobile known to be ineligible therefor. c) Any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally.”
“Any breach of this Code or the Appendices thereto, of the national rules or their appendices, or of any Supplementary Regulations committed by any organiser, official, competitor, driver, or other person or organisation may be penalised or fined. Penalties or fines may be inflicted by the stewards of the meeting and ASNs as indicated in the following articles. …”
“If, in events forming part of a FIA Championship, a new element is discovered, whether or not the stewards of the meeting have already given a ruling, these stewards of the meeting or, failing this, those designated by the FIA, must meet on a date agreed amongst themselves, summoning the party or parties concerned to hear any relevant explanations and to judge in the light of the facts and elements brought before them. The right of appeal against this new decision is confined to the party or parties concerned in accordance with the final paragraph of Article 180 and the following Articles of this Code. Should the first decision already have been the subject of an appeal before the National Court of Appeal or before the International Court of Appeal, or successively before both of these courts, the case shall be lawfully submitted to them for the possible revision of their previous decision. The period during which an appeal in review may be brought expires on 30 November of the current year.”
“Licences All drivers, competitors and officials participating in the Championship must hold a FIA Super Licence. Applications for Super Licences must be made annually to the FIA through the applicant’s ASN.”
“Article 1134 CC: Legally formed agreements take the place of law for those who have made them … They must be performed in good faith”
“48. The unlawful means carried out pursuant to the Conspiracy were (i) the Breaches of Contract [paras 41 and 42]; and/or (ii) Mr Ecclestone’s and/or FOM’s actions in inducing the Breaches of Contract … [paras 43 and 44]; and/or (iii) the Additional Breaches [para 42B]; and/or (iv) the Breaches of Duty [para 42B]”
“… I was very surprised at the defendants' central argument, my Lord, on this point, which with the greatest respect can be summarised as follows: an international sports governing body, whose whole purpose and reason it has power is to protect the integrity of the sport it governs, whose powers are derived from that purpose, that sports governing body itself has no responsibility to those to whom it contracts with and over those who it governs to do what it says on the tin. To govern the sport, to ensure integrity and fairness and prevent manipulation and cheating. It is a very surprising submission, it's one I have never heard before and it's one that would be dismissed by an English court very easily, there are plenty of cases in English law -- irrelevant to you because we are dealing with French law here -- that would give that short shrift.”
“365. In any event, the upshot is that I should make an assessment of the common intention of the parties. I may use subjective evidence (e.g. of what the parties actually thought) or objective evidence (e.g. what was the commercial context). 366. It was also common ground that the role of the “literal meaning of the words” is constrained in the way set out in art. 1156. I must not “stop” at them. Various texts refer to this in terms that the “spirit prevails over the letter” or “what has been said matters little, only what has been wanted matters”, or “we must investigate the common intent of the parties rather than focus on the literal meaning of the terms”. 367. It is therefore clear that French law is materially different from English law. It would be pointless as well as very difficult to try to define the exact scope of the difference and unprincipled to try to work out what the answer would be in English law and then modify it. I must try to work in the same way that a French judge would.”
“Otherwise, in the event an organiser and/or an entity responsible for implementing the applicable regulations of a sporting competition fails to uphold and implement the fundamental principles of integrity and fairness of sporting competitions, any competitions organized by the latter would cease to qualify as a “sporting competition” and would instead be reduced to a form of circus (or any other spectacle), devoid of the regulatory safeguards inherent to sporting competitions.”
“Therefore, in the context of a sporting competition, both usage and equity imply that the organiser and any entity responsible for the enforcement and implementation of applicable regulations adhere to their obligations to ensure the fairness, equity, integrity, and regularity of such competitions. Several decisions support the existence of this well-established principle. For example …”
“38. After having carried out careful research, I am not aware of any French law statute or usage whereby a term to preserve the fairness, equity, integrity and regularity of sporting competitions for which the sporting body is responsible, or a term imposing on a sporting organisation to promptly investigate any newly discovered fact that may constitute a breach of the “regulations in force”, should be implied into contracts between sporting bodies and sporting participants. 39. I am not aware either of any case in which a French court found that any of those terms had been implied into such a contract by the parties themselves. I am also not aware of, and authorities to which Mr Soiron refers in his report do not mention either, any case in which a French court has implied into a contract between a sporting body and a sporting participant a contractual term to preserve the fairness, equity, integrity and regularity of sporting competitions for which the sporting body is responsible, or a term imposing on a sporting organisation to promptly investigate any newly discovered fact that may constitute a breach of the “regulations in force”.”
“312. Proposal for a definition. – Sum of leges sportivae, "set of rules governing the organisation of sporting events", transnational sports law, transnational sports law developed by the CAS, "set of rules of anational law that should apply to free the law applicable to the merits of sports disputes from any influence of the various national laws", the Lex Sportiva is a bit of all of these things at the same time. But since lex sportiva is the transnational law of sport, this is not the whole of sports law. It is a set of written and unwritten, concordant rules, structured by transnational guiding principles, highlighted by the arbitration bodies of sport, first and foremost the CAS. In this way, it spares the person who renders sports justice the often very difficult task of explaining the normative foundations of its reasons and solutions. It is a "refined form of ipse dixit". The content of the lex sportiva 313. General principles of sports law. – Among the principles, which structure the lex sportiva, some express the fundamental requirements of sport and more particularly of competitive sport: fair play, sporting equity, equality of competitors, integrity, sincerity rules of law that could be used as a visa for a judgment of the Court of Cassation, and that the latter can be applied in inter-individual relationships. But the judicial judge did not push the audacity too far and took care to justify their application by the tacit will of the interested parties. As with the violation of a national regulation, the sanctions that can be envisaged will be mainly of a sporting or disciplinary nature.”
“The law does not require that the unlawful means should themselves be actionable at the suit of the claimant: the means might be a criminal action, a breach of contract, a director’s fiduciary duty to a company or fraud.”
“… are subject to a five year period of limitation from the day on which the holder of a right became aware or should have become aware of the facts enabling him or her to exercise that right.”
“32 Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or mistake. (1) Subject to subsections (3), (4A) and (4B) below, where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either — (a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or (b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or (c) the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. …. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty.” (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty.”
“While Whiting did tell Mosley about what Piquet had said, the FIA steered clear of launching a formal investigation straight away. Reflecting on the reasons for that, Mosley, who was a former barrister, said that despite Piquet Sr’s word, the FIA could not launch charges because there was no concrete proof that Piquet had been told to crash deliberately. “This [Piquet’s chat to Whiting] confirmed what I suspected and it also confirmed what a lot of other people suspected,”
“During his stay [in Brazil] Ecclestone had met many old friends including Nelson Piquet Senior Beyond their banter, he was unaware that his former driver had privately pulled aside Charlie Whiting, FIA’s race director, with whom he had worked for seven years at Brabham. “Flavio’s a shit”, Piquet said, explaining the intrigue behind his son’s crash in Singapore. Whiting, a reserved man, cautioned Piquet: “If you do something now it will be bad for Nelson Junior. He’ll be forced out of Formula One”
““In Hungary ... Bernie came to my place ... I was beside myself ... he asked me what the problem was between Nelson and Flavio .... I told Bernie ... I told him the whole story... I said that he had to know the worst thing, which is that in Singapore he (Briatore - Ed.) he had convinced Nelson to cause an accident to let Alonso win the race ... He told me not to tell the press. I asked him, what should I do? He answered me: fuck it”.”
“What section 32(1)(b) requires is that the defendant has “deliberately concealed” “a fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action”
“… where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act … any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant …”
“74. Next, applying FII (paras 193 and 195), limitation runs from the point in time when the claimant either (i) knows, or could with reasonable diligence know, of the concealed facts with sufficient confidence to justify embarking on the preliminaries to the issue of a writ, such as submitting a claim to the proposed defendant, taking advice and collecting evidence or (ii), (applying earlier dictum from case law) discovers or could with reasonable diligence discover the concealed facts in the sense of recognising that a worthwhile claim arises.”
“In my judgment this reasoning is misconceived. The question is not whether the plaintiffs should have discovered the fraud sooner; but whether they could with reasonable diligence have done so. The burden of proof is on them. They must establish that they could not have discovered the fraud without exceptional measures which they could not reasonably have been expected to take. In this context the length of the applicable period of limitation is irrelevant. In the course of argument May LJ observed that reasonable diligence must be measured against some standard, but that the six-year limitation period did not provide the relevant standard. He suggested that the test was how a person carrying on a business of the relevant kind would act if he had adequate but not unlimited staff and resources and were motivated by a reasonable but not excessive sense of urgency. I respectfully agree. As Chadwick J observed in the Thakerar case, it is not easy to believe that a solicitor acting for the borrower in this kind of mortgage fraud can be ignorant of the fraudulent nature of the mortgage application. It is very difficult to believe when he has acted for several such borrowers. In my judgment Timothy Lloyd J should not have been satisfied on the material before him, in summary proceedings in the absence of discovery and without the benefit of cross-examination, that the plaintiffs could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud before the relevant date. This is not to say that he should have reached a concluded view. He should have refused leave to amend and left all to play for in fresh proceedings.”
“So far as the first step is concerned, I consider that the judge was right in his conclusion that it is inherent in section 32(1) of the 1980 Act, particularly after considering the way in which Millett LJ expressed himself in Paragon, that there must be an assumption that the claimant desires to discover whether or not there has been a fraud. Not making any such assumption would rob the effect of the word "could", as emphasised by Millett LJ, of much of its significance. Further, the concept of "reasonable diligence" carries with it, as the judge said, the notion of a desire to know, and, indeed, to investigate.”
“68. It is, of course, well established that the courts will not entertain cases which serve no sufficient or legitimate legal purpose. Courts of law have no concern with hypothetical or academic questions and are "neither a debating club nor an advisory bureau": Macnaughton v Macnaughton's Trs 1953 SC 387, 392, per Lord Justice Clerk Thomson. So the House dismissed a claim for a declaration of incompatibility in relation to a statutory provision which was, in practice, a dead letter: R (Rusbridger) v Attorney General[2004] 1 AC 357 . A court will also dismiss proceedings which might have had a legitimate purpose when they began, but no longer do so, because of a change of circumstances: Clarke v Fennoscandia Ltd[2007] UKHL 56 ; 2008 SLT 33.”