Tony de Garr Robinson QC acted for the claimant, a racing driver who was trying to become a Formula One race driver. One of the means by which this is achieved is by becoming a test driver for a Formula One team. Until recently, it was not uncommon for a driver to pay a Formula One team substantial sums for the privilege of being their test driver. The claimant was one such driver. In 2007, he paid Spyker F1 (now called Force India) $3 million for the right to drive their Formula One car in testing and/or practising and/or racing for a minimum of 6,000 km, plus other benefits.
In the event, Spyker F1 provided the claimant with only 2,300 km of test driving and the claimant brought a claim in respect of the shortfall. Because it is so difficult for drivers to break into Formula One, it was extremely difficult for the claimant to prove that he had suffered financial loss which was commensurate with the amounts that he had paid for the driving kilometres which Spyker had failed to provide (Spyker argued that he was entitled only to nominal damages). The claimant therefore made a variety of other claims, including for restitution (on the basis that there had been a total failure of consideration as to part of the contract), for performance interest damages (damages measured by reference to for the commercial value of the missing driving kilometres) and for Wrotham Park damages (damages measured by reference to the amount that he would have reasonably have been entitled to demand if Spyker had asked him to give up his right to the missing kilometres).
In a 561 paragraph judgment, Stadlen J subjected these claims to a probing analysis. In the event, the Judge upheld the claimant’s claim for substantial damages, awarding him performance interest damages of $1.865 million and indicating that, had he not been entitled to performance interest damages, as a matter of practical justice he would have been entitled to a Wrotham Park award in the same amount.
Stadlen J’s judgment has important things to say about each of the claimant’s claims. For example:
- In considering the claim for total failure of consideration, he includes an illuminating analysis (a) of the circumstances in which the court can disregard significant benefits that were provided under the contract (so that they are not bars to restitutionary relief) and (b) the circumstances in which the court can apportion the contract price between different benefits.
- He holds that, in a claim for breach of a contract for the provision of services, the claimant is entitled to damages measured by the value of the services which should have been provided, even if he has suffered no financial loss as a result of the breach.
- He holds that Wrotham Park damages are generally available for breach of contract and that they are not limited to claims relating to property, to negative covenants or to claims for damages in lieu of an injunction or specific performance.
Tony de Garr Robinson QC was instructed by Starr & Partners LLP