Former F1 manager Bernie Ecclestone’s lawyer said Felipe Massa’s High Court claim was a “misguided attempt” to reopen the 2008 Drivers’ Championship result in which he finished second to Lewis Hamilton.
Hamilton’s first F1 world championship is the subject of a lawsuit, with Brazilian Massa suing Formula One Management (FOM), the sport’s governing body the FIA and Ecclestone for £64 million in a London court.
Ecclestone, the FIA and FOM are defending the claims and on Wednesday applied to have the case dismissed.
Massa insists he is the rightful winner of the 2008 title, which he lost by one point to a deliberately caused crash by Renault at the Singapore Grand Prix.
Fernando Alonso won in Singapore. Massa, who was leading the race in a Ferrari, lost his strategy and finished 13th after Renault ordered teammate Nelson Piquet Jr. to crash and the safety car was brought out.
After the accident in Singapore, Massa jumped out of the pit stop prematurely with the fuel hose still attached to his car, hitting a member of his team and into the path of another car.
The following season, Pique revealed that he had been instructed by his superiors to crash on purpose.
Ecclestone, who coached F1 for 40 years before stepping down in 2017, suggested in 2023 that F1 executives were aware of the cover-up before the end of the 2008 campaign.
Massa is suing for breach of contract or duty, with his lawyers claiming Ecclestone knew the accident was intentional but that Massa and the FIA failed to investigate.
On Wednesday, a defense lawyer said Massa performed poorly at the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix, which ultimately resulted in him losing the championship, adding that the appeal was too late.
Ecclestone’s lawyer David Quest KC said in a written submission that Massa’s claims were a “misguided attempt to reopen the outcome of the 2008 F1 Drivers’ Championship”.
He added: “Mr Massa claims that if the FIA had dealt with the accident, he would have won the drivers’ championship.”
“These declarations treat the court as a sporting ‘debate club’ and call for it to engage in counterfactual action regarding ‘officiating’ a sporting event that took place nearly 17 years ago.”
Ecclestone’s lawyer went on to say that Massa’s claims would “deprive Mr Hamilton of his 2008 title”, despite the Briton being “similarly exposed to accidents”.
FIA’s John Mehrzad KC said Massa’s claims were “overly ambitious and distressing” and “clearly overlooked his own catalog of errors”.
Anneliese Day KC, for FOM, said in her written submission that this claim “will fail”.
He added that anyone reading the details of the claim would be left with the “false” impression that Massa’s failure to score points in the race was due to the deliberate crash and subsequent introduction of the safety car.
Day continued: “In truth, it wasn’t the introduction of the safety car that changed Mr Massa’s history, but a series of subsequent race mistakes he and his team made with 47 laps remaining in the race.
“The simple fact is that at the Singapore Grand Prix and throughout the 2008 season, Mr. Hamilton outperformed Mr. Massa and others.”
Massa, who appeared in court on Wednesday, is seeking damages for loss of income and sponsorship.
He is also seeking a declaration that the FIA acted in breach of its own regulations and would have canceled or adjusted the result of the Singapore Grand Prix and won the drivers’ championship had it not been for the breach.
Nick De Marco KC, representing Mr Massa, argued that the case should not be thrown out and should go to full trial, saying in written submissions that the defendants “cannot prove that Mr Massa’s claims have no real chance of success.”
He added: “Mr. Massa has solid prospects for success on all fronts.”
The barrister also said: “Whether the FIA breached its obligations is a fact-sensitive question and the court should not conduct a mini-trial on this.”
The hearing before Judge Jay is scheduled to conclude on Friday, and a decision may be announced at a later date.

