Otmar Szafnauer was subject to a brutal cross-examination as one of two former team principals to give evidence in London’s High Court in the ongoing McLaren vs Alex Palou trial.
McLaren Indy LLC is seeking damages of nearly $20 million from Palou and his management company for the breach of contract after Palou decided in August 2023 not to join McLaren’s IndyCar programme, with his belief being that the team had broken a promise to place him in F1 for the 2024 season, something described as an option and not an obligation in the contract.
Palou and McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown both gave evidence to London’s High Court in front of Mr Justice Picken earlier in October, with former Force India, Racing Point, Aston Martin and Alpine boss Szafnauer and former Williams de facto boss Claire Williams called as expert witnesses.
Szafnauer was called for Palou’s defence, whilst Williams did so for McLaren.
In his cross-examination by Ceila Rooney for McLaren, Szafnauer’s impartiality and independence as an expert witness were called into question, given his previous "bust-ups" with Brown and McLaren.
Rooney centred around the 2020 case when Szafnauer’s Racing Point was docked points in the constructors’ for an illegal part, with Brown’s McLaren seeking harsher sanctions from the FIA.
Evidence in the form of news articles was presented, including one from RacingNews365, with Szafnauer steadfast in his evidence that his feud with Brown was nothing personal and that it was part of doing business in F1 over a controversial incident.
Rooney then proceeded to talk about Szafnauer’s dealings with Brown in the 2022 saga around Oscar Piastri’s contract and the Contract Recognition Board’s findings.
It was alleged by Rooney, conducting the cross-examination in place of lead barrister Paul Goulding KC, that Szafnauer "had an Oscar Piastri-shaped chip on his shoulder," and that by being called for Palou’s defence, he was "hoping to dole out a piece of revenge" to McLaren and Brown for the loss of Piastri.
Szafnauer emphatically denied these allegations, saying "that is not true" as he gave an honest account of how F1 team principals act to defend their teams against a rival, including "performing" in official press conferences, but being cordial and friendly once the cameras were turned off.
When the fact that he had not mentioned the full scale of the Piastri situation in the first of two written reports, Szafnauer countered this, pointing out it had been in the joint expert witness report, prepared with Williams, although separately.
Williams, who has not been involved in F1 since the family sold the team to Dorilton Capital in September 2020, was called to give evidence on behalf of McLaren and was cross-examined by Hollie Higgins, deputising for lead barrister Nick de Marco KC.
In her evidence, Williams claimed that she believed McLaren had fulfilled all the obligations it was required to do so for Palou, including multiple TPC runs and Free Practice 1 sessions.
Palou completed FP1 at the 2022 United States GP in place of Daniel Ricciardo, and Williams opined under her cross-examination that she believed McLaren had fulfilled its promises.
When asked by Higgins how she could know this if she wasn’t involved in the contract negotiations and if she was just "parroting the McLaren line," Williams denied this, saying all the evidence to support her claim was publicly available and open.
Recalling her own experiences of managing reserve drivers, Williams claimed she would "not be happy if Palou reneged" on his contract as a big-name reserve driver.
Closing arguments in the case are due on Wednesday, November 5th, with Mr Justice Picken then set to retire to consider the evidence before making his ruling.
The trial continues.
Most read
In this article
Join the conversation!