Giedo Van Der Garde takes Sauber to court - Page 2

**ScotsBrutesFan** · 9 Mar 2015, 11:40 (Ref:3513241)

The thing is should GvdG win, then Nasr or Ericsson or Sauber themselves immediate launch an appeal. Or even if Sauber win GvdG appeals.

This is unlikely to be heard before the weekend, and so presumably the current incumbents would get the drive.

My only fear is that if it did go to appeal then GvdG could apply for what in Scottish law is called an Interim Interdict - it may go be the same name elsewhere (a temprorary ban) preventing Sauber taking part until the appeal was heard.

Tourer · 9 Mar 2015, 12:13 (Ref:3513248)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

The thing is should GvdG win, then Nasr or Ericsson or Sauber themselves immediate launch an appeal. Or even if Sauber win GvdG appeals.

This is unlikely to be heard before the weekend, and so presumably the current incumbents would get the drive.

My only fear is that if it did go to appeal then GvdG could apply for what in Scottish law is called an Interim Interdict - it may go be the same name elsewhere (a temprorary ban) preventing Sauber taking part until the appeal was heard.

It's called an in injunction here in Oz and can take many forms. I would expect the likelihood of a court stopping Sauber from taking part would be low due to the hardship that Sauber could show would be caused to the team.

My personal view is that the court here is more likely to question whether or not it (the court) can rule on agreements under Swiss law when the Swiss laws are quite different to those in Victoria it would seem.

Mike Harte · 9 Mar 2015, 12:26 (Ref:3513257)

Quote:

Originally Posted by aj_308

Reading between the lines, didn't GvDG's "contract" involve the sponsor putting in money last year to solve their insolvency problems on the proviso that he have a racing seat this year?

I wonder who's money they have taken for next years drive? Pending someone coming up with more!

I don't think its fair to promise a driver a race seat so you can get his sponsorship money, then not giving him the seat.
If this is what they did I hope they do get made a right fool of as thats jolly poor form.

From what I've read, his backers paid to sponsor the team for last season possibly on the understanding that he would have a race seat for this season for which the backers would pay for sponsorship this year.

However, it would seem that Sauber ran out of cash last year, and the new drivers' backers came in as white knights and financially supported the team so that it could get through to this season. Sauber have stated that if they had not had the cash injection then it was likely that the team would have folded towards the end of last year.

What will be interesting is whether this came out in court, and of more interest would be whether GndG's and his backers were asked to come to the rescue latish last year, and if so, what their response to the request was? Might it not be feasible that if Sauber hadn't taken the course of action that they have that he may have found that there was not only no car for him to drive but that there was no team remaining who he could take to court?

chillibowl · 9 Mar 2015, 14:56 (Ref:3513311)

following up on SBF's and Tourer's points, what authority (if any) does an Australian ruling have in other jurisdictions and why is he not suing in Europe or Switzerland?

thoughts of Stoddart using the Australian courts to force F1 to allow his entry in 2005(i think) come to mind. for commercial reasons what he did made sense that he would want his team allowed for his 'home' race but what can GvdG get here other than a one of race in OZ?

**BertMk2** · 9 Mar 2015, 15:52 (Ref:3513336)

Quote:

Originally Posted by chillibowl

what can GvdG get here other than a one of race in OZ?

Maybe he wants a financial settlement rather than the drive? If his sponsors paid up last season on the basis that he got a drive this season maybe this case is leverage for a refund? A refund that could then be used to fund a Manor drive?

chillibowl · 9 Mar 2015, 16:47 (Ref:3513342)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BertMk2

Maybe he wants a financial settlement rather than the drive? If his sponsors paid up last season on the basis that he got a drive this season maybe this case is leverage for a refund? A refund that could then be used to fund a Manor drive?

true true.

for both sides i cant help but think its just a dirty piece of business although im not sure what bothers me more. selling the seat to more than one person or suing you way off of the bench?

**FIRE** · 9 Mar 2015, 17:43 (Ref:3513362)

This soap is popcorn time.

Gingers4Justice · 9 Mar 2015, 20:27 (Ref:3513430)

"The Australian courts have deferred a decision on whether Sauber must let Giedo van der Garde race its Formula 1 car until Wednesday."

Just as well - he'd be absolutely knackered!

csirl · 10 Mar 2015, 10:35 (Ref:3513620)

To answer some of the legal points raised on this thread:

- Yes, an Australian Court can rule on a Swiss contract/Arbitration under Swiss Law. Swiss Law will apply even though the hearing is in Australia. If the Australian Court makes an Order, then it will have to be complied with (or else people could end up in jail for contempt).

- Judges normally 'reserve judgement' in this type of case - will take a day or two for the Judge to consider the arguments made and write up his judgement. Dont read anything into it.

Can anyone answer the following about what happened at the Court hearing, which would have been held in public (very little detail in the media).

1. What remedy is VDG seeking. This would have been made clear in court. Did his lawyers ask for the drive or did they ask for compensation?

2. The only detail I saw in the media was that Saubers defence was 'he hasnt driven this years car' and 'he hasnt had a seat fitting'. Is this true? I can't believe that this would be all they have in defence. If so, I wouldn't be optimistic for them.

**GTRMagic** · 10 Mar 2015, 10:42 (Ref:3513622)

Live Trial Here from 10am AEST Wednesday March 11 2015

steve nielsen · 10 Mar 2015, 15:31 (Ref:3513713)

Quote:

Originally Posted by csirl

2. The only detail I saw in the media was that Saubers defence was 'he hasnt driven this years car' and 'he hasnt had a seat fitting'. Is this true? I can't believe that this would be all they have in defence. If so, I wouldn't be optimistic for them.

that's not the only defence

http://www.grandprixtimes.com/news/display/09959

Hawkwood · 10 Mar 2015, 16:12 (Ref:3513723)

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve nielsen

that's not the only defence

http://www.grandprixtimes.com/news/display/09959

All that article says is that they made the decision to sack him "in the interests of the team".

No kind of defence really. Every decision is made in the interests of the company.

steve nielsen · 10 Mar 2015, 16:20 (Ref:3513724)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkwood

All that article says is that they made the decision to sack him "in the interests of the team".

No kind of defence really. Every decision is made in the interests of the company.

no, it also says it saved the team and 330 jobs.

**bella** · 10 Mar 2015, 16:23 (Ref:3513726)

not only did it save them from losing their jobs, it saved them from a season with a seriously mediocre driver too

chillibowl · 10 Mar 2015, 16:39 (Ref:3513728)

in fairness the quote reads that she acted in the interest of the team and its 330 employees.

that could mean a whole lot of things really and as a defense seems sort of ridiculous...what other contracts are they allowed to ignore if someone with a bigger bag of cash shows up?

rather, in the long run is this not actually worse for a team that is dependent on pay driver money to be seen as not honouring the terms of their pay driver agreements?

Hawkwood · 10 Mar 2015, 16:49 (Ref:3513729)

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve nielsen

no, it also says it saved the team and 330 jobs.

No, actually it doesn't say that at all.
The sensationalised headline does not appear in the actual article.

**FIRE** · 10 Mar 2015, 17:18 (Ref:3513740)

And without his money these 330 people would already have lost their jobs last year?

Mike Harte · 10 Mar 2015, 17:37 (Ref:3513749)

You have less than 5 hours to kick your heels before the judgement is delivered, and then we may find out what was said in court yesterday. Nobody seems to have published a transcript, or a precis of one, of the proceedings, and I wonder whether the hearing was held in public or in chambers due to possibly sensitive contractual information.

Whatever, the judge is due to release his findings at 22.00 GMT.

**FIRE** · 10 Mar 2015, 17:49 (Ref:3513759)

Yesterday it was public.

Paradise City · 10 Mar 2015, 19:23 (Ref:3513788)

All these minnows teams are on a knife edge. If they don't face immediate extinction, then extinction is a prospect that isn't far down the line. They are going to grab a better deal if they think they can get it and in their mind it will be a question of survival. It may very well be the difference between racing or collapse at some juncture.

I get the point and it's quite right that it's not a proper legal defence of course.

Mike Harte · 10 Mar 2015, 20:08 (Ref:3513801)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paradise City

All these minnows teams are on a knife edge. If they don't face immediate extinction, then extinction is a prospect that isn't far down the line. They are going to grab a better deal if they think they can get it and in their mind it will be a question of survival. It may very well be the difference between racing or collapse at some juncture.

I get the point and it's quite right that it's not a proper legal defence of course.

If, as Monisha Kaltenborn said last week after the arbitration hearing in Switzerland, the facts were that she had to take up the offers from the backers of Ericcson and Nasr to ensure the survival of the team and it's 330 employees towards the back end of last year, then who are we, or anyone for that matter, to argue. It would seem as though those backers injected considerable monies in to Sauber before the end of last year enabling it to bring their 2015 car to the track. I further believe that GvdG and his backers were unable to match that funding.

So, would van der Garde have been happier for his contract to have been honoured but still not have a race seat because there was no team to provide it because they had run out of cash and had shut up shop? You know, I sometimes think that litigants would do far better if they only kept their "negotiations" behind closed doors, rather than in the full glare of the public's glaze.

**GTRMagic** · 10 Mar 2015, 23:04 (Ref:3513840)

The court seems to have made the decision that Mr Van Der Garde has won..

Will he race this weekend???

**GTRMagic** · 10 Mar 2015, 23:14 (Ref:3513843)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

The court seems to have made the decision that Mr Van Der Garde has won..

Will he race this weekend???

What a freaking mess....

SWCRacing · 10 Mar 2015, 23:16 (Ref:3513844)

No seem to about it!! If he ain't in the car, Sauber will be in contempt of court...

And Sauber only have themselves to blame.... They breached the contract

**GTRMagic** · 10 Mar 2015, 23:23 (Ref:3513849)

Story Here

Wonder if running in FP1 is equivalent to a 'race'?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Chris van der Drift	RichardRenes	National & International Single Seaters	42	7 Sep 2010 09:58
Van Der Steur	cptkablamo	Sportscar & GT Racing	7	31 Jan 2008 15:35
Van der Garde gets SA 3rd seat	Dutch chap	Formula One	37	6 Feb 2007 09:04
Giedo van der Garde to Super Aguri?	alonso11	National & International Single Seaters	3	11 Dec 2006 14:27