Felipe Massa’s £64m claim over the outcome of the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix has spotlighted the specialist tort of unlawful means conspiracy. In November 2025, the High Court ruled that Massa’s damages claim based on unlawful means conspiracy has a ‘real prospect of success’ and should proceed to trial, while dismissing his bid for a declaration that he should have been the 2008 world champion.
Case background
The core allegation will be familiar to Formula One fans. Nelson Piquet Jr deliberately crashed during the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix, triggering a Safety Car that dramatically changed the race (ultimately benefitting his Renault F1 teammate Fernando Alonso, who won the race). Massa, who had at the time been leading the race, finished outside the points and later lost the championship by a single point.
Years on, Massa argues that senior figures in F1 and Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) suppressed information about the crash at the time, delaying any investigation and denying him the chance to challenge the race result in the 2008 season. The High Court has now permitted his damages claim to proceed, while emphasising that courts cannot rewrite sporting outcomes or declare new champions.
Unlawful means conspiracy
At its simplest, unlawful means conspiracy arises when two or more people act together using unlawful means with the intent to cause loss to someone, with their actions ultimately causing loss. The ‘unlawful means’ could be a criminal offence, a civil wrong or inducing a breach of contract. For a claimant to succeed, the court must find a collaboration or agreement between the alleged conspirators, the use of unlawful means, an intention to injure the claimant, and resulting financial loss. The intention to injure does not need to be the dominant motive, provided it is a genuine part of the plan.
In Massa’s case, the pleaded conspiracy focuses on the alleged suppression of information, failures to comply with regulatory duties, and inducements to breach obligations. Whether those allegations can be proved will be determined at trial.
High Court Hearing
The defendants advanced a series of applications challenging the viability of the claim, seeking the strike out of substantial parts of the particulars of claim or, in the alternative, summary judgment on the basis that the conspiracy and inducement claims had no real prospect of success.
The court was asked to decide whether the claimant’s case was legally and factually sufficient to proceed to trial. This required an assessment of the pleaded unlawful means, the alleged collaboration between the defendants, the intention to injure, and whether Massa had a realistic prospect of proving causation and loss.
High Court Judgment
The judge concluded that the allegations, if proved, could amount to unlawful means conspiracy and inducement of breach of contract. For that reason, the claims should proceed to trial. The court emphasised that the legal test at this early stage is whether the claims have a realistic, rather than fanciful, prospect of success.
Several arguments, particularly those targeting the FIA, were dismissed at this stage. Limitation issues and other procedural hurdles narrowed the case, although they did not eliminate the core conspiracy and inducement claims.
Implications beyond motorsport
The principles underlying unlawful means conspiracy extend far beyond Formula One. The tort often features in commercial, regulatory and governance disputes where parties act together in a way that undermines another party’s contractual or economic rights.
Disputes can arise in situations where rival bidders coordinate conduct to disadvantage a competitor, where several entities work together to induce breaches of exclusivity or distribution arrangements, or where senior individuals suppress information in breach of regulatory or contractual obligations.
Although the factual matrix varies by sector, the essential ingredients remain the same. Where there is a combination of unlawful conduct, intention to cause harm, and resulting financial loss, courts will generally allow a claimant to test those allegations at trial.
Key lessons for businesses
1) Transparency beats cover‑ups
Transparency remains the most effective defence against conspiracy allegations. Businesses should ensure decisions are recorded accurately, internal investigations are initiated promptly when issues arise, and disclosure obligations are followed carefully.
2) Manage limitation risk
Limitation deserves particular attention. Old issues can surface years later when new information emerges in interviews, public statements or disclosures. Companies should maintain a clear register of legacy issues and review statements or disclosures periodically, especially where operations span multiple jurisdictions with differing rules.
Communications between colleagues, including informal messages, may be scrutinised in litigation which is often overlooked.
3) Seeking legal advice early
Early legal advice is critical when a crisis develops. Legal teams can assist in assessing contractual and regulatory duties, planning internal investigations, and ensuring that responses remain compliant.
How we can help
Unlawful means conspiracy is a serious risk where crisis management slips into conduct which is not compliant. Courts won’t rewrite history, but will hear damages claims if the legal elements are made out. If you’re facing allegations of collusion or need to stress‑test your governance, we can help you.
Need tailored advice? Speak to James Musallam, senior solicitor in the Dispute Resolution team at Herrington Carmichael for a confidential discussion. Contact us.
