Back in 2002, at the height of his serial court appearances, Arrows team principal Tom Walkinshaw opined that his company had lost its latest case (a debt in favour of Cosworth) due to "the judge not understanding Formula 1..."
The comment drew guffaws of laughter from the media, but in retrospect the Scot had a point: most non-F1 folk have little understanding of the paddock's nuances. How, then, can a judge, any judge - likely schooled in Oxbridge and residing in some leafy suburb - be expected to grasp every twist and turn of this high-octane sporting business?
Having read last week's verdict of the High Court of Justice Chancery Division in the Force India/Aerolab matter, it seems that Mr Justice Arnold failed to fully appreciate the subtleties of F1, thus handing down a judgment that, at first reading, failed to fully address claimant Force India's grievances, namely that its intellectual property had been breached by Aerolab to the benefit of its subsequent client, 1 Malaysia Racing (previously Lotus F1, now Caterham F1).
Aerolab admitted that a portion of Force India IP had erroneously remained embedded in its systems as a result of the hasty transition between the termination of Force India as a client (at the end of July 2009, six months ahead of time due to various non-payments by Force India) and taking on 1 Malaysia Racing (coincidentally also subject to legal proceedings over use of the Lotus moniker) as a client virtually overnight.
To continue reading this feature, subscribe to Autosport Plus today.
Are you an Autosport magazine subscriber? Activate your online account
- Your Autosport Plus subscription includes:
- Unlimited access to Autosport's news - no monthly cap.
- Read the best motorsport features, analysis and opinion.
- Explore Forix, our comprehensive motorsport stats database.
- Choose from a monthly or yearly membership.