Massa and others (Respondents) v Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (Appellant)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0037

Parties

Appellant(s)

Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile

Respondent(s)

Filipe Massa

Bernard Charles Ecclestone

Formula One Management Limited

Issue

Can the tort of unlawful means conspiracy be founded on: 1. a civil wrong that is not independently actionable by the claimant? 2. a breach of contract to which the claimant is not a party? 3. a breach of foreign law? 4. conduct that the defendant did not know to be unlawful?

Facts

Mr Massa is a retired Formula One (F1) driver who raced for various F1 teams between 2002 and 2017. In 2008 his team was Ferrari and he was their lead driver. The inaugural Singapore Grand Prix took place on 28 September 2008. On lap 14, one of the Renault drivers, Nelson Piquet Jr, deliberately crashed his car in order to aid his colleague, Fernando Alonso. Mr Hamilton won the 2008 Grand Prix season as F1 World Driver’s Champion one point ahead of Mr Massa. Mr Massa alleges that had the crash been investigated and acted upon in 2008, the Singapore result would have been annulled, and he would have been the F1 World Driver’s Champion for the 2008 season. On 24 March 2024, Mr Massa issued proceedings against the appellants. Mr Massa advanced the following claims: (1) a claim in breach of contract against the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (“FIA”), (2) a claim in the tort of inducing breach of contract against Formula One Management Limited (“FOM”) and Mr Ecclestone, (3) a claim in the tort of unlawful means conspiracy against all three respondents and (4) a claim in tort against the FIA founded on alleged breaches of a duty owed by the FIA under its Statutes. Mr Massa contended that he was entitled to both damages and declaratory relief. On 17 January 2025, the appellants applied to have Mr Massa’s claims struck out and/or for reverse summary judgment. By Orders dated 20 November 2025 and 5 March 2026, Mr Justice Jay struck out claims (1), (2), (4) and the claim for declaratory relief. He declined, however, to strike out the claim in the tort of unlawful means conspiracy. The appellants now appeal directly to the Supreme Court against Jay J’s decision not to strike out the respondent’s unlawful means conspiracy claim.

Date of issue

27 March 2026

Case origin

PTA

Linked cases

Back to top