The Brazilian race driver took to social media declaring ‘crashgate victory,’ after the High Court in London made its ruling this week. Felipe Massa filed a lawsuit over the 2008 F1 championship, arguing the crashgate saga stopped him from being driver’s world champion (by one point).
But in the aftermath of the ruling, confusion erupted. With both the FIA and Formula One Management (FOM) claiming their own ‘crashgate victory’ in a contradicting statement. However, Italian sources, including Sky Italia, describe this as ‘an important victory’ for Massa (44). Because the court refused to drop the case and it will now proceed in 2026.
CRASHGATE VICTORY BIG FOR MASSA
The former Ferrari driver declared his crashgate victory a ‘great day for justice.’ Saying the court had refused attempts by FOM, Bernie Ecclestone and the FIA to shut down his case. “This is a tremendous victory. The court has seen the strength of my case,” the Brazilian declared.
“They (the FIA and FOM) did everything possible to stop proceedings, but our fight is for fairness. And today we have won. We are now more determined and confident than ever ahead of a full trial next year,” said the 2008 runner-up.
CONTRADICTING STATEMENTS ON RULING
However, the FIA issued its own statement, claiming that it had succeeded in a crashgate victory. According to the motorsport governing body, the judge dismissed Massa’s breach-of-contract and breach-of-duty claim. As well as his bid for declarations that the 2008 world title should be his. The court also highlighted ‘serious doubts’ about parts of Massa’s case. And noted ‘a number of obstacles’ regarding causation.
Nevertheless, the key point – and the reason Massa’s camp is celebrating – is that the judge rejected attempts to throw out the central allegation. Namely, a conspiracy claim against FOM, Ecclestone and the FIA. The court has allowed that claim to proceed to a full trial, subject to reformulated pleadings and further expert evidence. The full trial is expected in 2026. – with GMM
What do you think? Can a court overturn something that happened 17 years ago? If so, will it open the door for similar disputes? Be sure to let us know in the comments section below …
