The Haas / Force India argument is fascinating, and the decision of the stewards may still have consequences. The first key finding is that the stewards ruled Racing Point Force India to be a valid constructor. That means that it builds its own cars.

Haas had argued that the cars had been designed by Force India, but as Haas knows only too well, "outsourcing" is legal. The stewards decided that "there is no regulatory support for the argument that Outsourcing of Listed Parts cannot come from a former or excluded team."
In determining this, the stewards also came to the following conclusion: "In relation to the submission by the Racing Point Force India F1 Team that it is not a new team, the Stewards decide that the Racing Point Force India F1 Team is indeed a new team."
This will have a big knock on effect for Haas in its continued arguments over the rights of RPFI as relates to its eligibility and rights under the complex payments structure. Haas has argued all along that RPFI should be treated as a new team and tread the same path that it did.
TLDR? Haas lost the fight but may have won the war. In having its argument that Racing Point hadn't designed their own car thrown out, they gained clarification that RPFI was a new team.

More from Sport

Over 70 former professional rugby players are preparing for legal action against the sport’s governing bodies according to this report.

The group litigation seems to be in its early stages, but World Rugby & Unions will be starting to get twitchy.

THREAD on the key issues 👇🏼


1) Duty of care

Do the governing bodies (World Rugby, RFU, WRU etc) owe players a duty of care in respect of their health and safety? The answer is almost certainly yes (see for example Watson v BBBoC).

2) Breach of duty

Have the governing bodies breached this duty? This is the first of the major hurdles for any litigation.

The question is essentially whether they acted reasonably in the circumstances.

Did they know about the dangers of concussion and fail to act?

Or should they have done more to discover the dangers of concussion but failed to do so?

The NFL case was based on the fact that the NFL knew of the dangers and covered them up. I’d suggest that’s unlikely here. However, it may be that WR/Unions should have done more sooner.

Much will depend upon the state of medical/scientific understanding of concussion at the relevant times.

For example, in the early 80s it may be that there was no indication that concussion might cause long-term complications but, by the early 2000s, there was.

You May Also Like