McLaren Indy LLC & Anor v Alpa Racing USA LLC & Ors [2026] EWHC 110 (Comm)

 

Summary

The claimant alleged that the second defendant, a Spanish racing driver, had repudiated a binding agreement under which he was contracted to drive for the claimants’ IndyCar team for the 2024, 2025 and 2026 racing seasons. The judge found some of the expert witnesses to be impressive and independent, while the expert evidence of others was unimpressive and disappointing.  

Learning points

Learning points for experts

• Do not take on the role of an advocate.

• Engaging effectively with points raised by the other expert, and making reasonable concessions where appropriate, can increase your credibility with the court.

• Do not exaggerate or be vague about your relevant experience. You can check out the advice in EWI’s CV Writing Toolkit to avoid these types of mistakes.

• In smaller fields in particular, experts will sometimes have had past interactions with the parties or other experts in the case. However, the fact that the expert might have had professional differences in the past with the opposing party or expert does not necessarily mean they cannot perform their duty to be independent and impartial.

• You should discuss any past interactions of this type with the instructing party before being instructed and, if instructed, make any appropriate disclosures in your report.

Learning point for instructing parties

• Your expert may face greater challenges than the opposing expert in convincing the court if they, demonstrably, have a significantly lower level of expertise than their colleague.

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login