Empyrean Protocol

Empyrean Intelligence Console

← Back to briefs

McLaren Indy LLC & Anor v Alpa Racing USA LLC & Ors [2025] EWHC 1825 (Comm) (15 July 2025)

Source: Open mirrored case · Original bailii.org

Sanctions — Geo ✓

Executive Summary

  • The High Court of England and Wales considered a pre-trial disclosure application in *McLaren Indy LLC & Anor v Alpa Racing USA LLC & Ors* (2025 EWHC 1825 (Comm)) concerning sponsorship contracts between Chip Ganassi Racing (CGR) and third parties DHL and PNC Bank.
  • The Claimants sought production of sponsorship agreements to determine if contracts referenced specific IndyCar drivers, challenging Defendants’ expert evidence that sponsorships focus on teams, not individual drivers.
  • The Court analyzed whether the contracts were “mentioned” under Practice Direction 57AD paragraph 21 to justify disclosure.
  • The ruling found a borderline but sufficient mention of contracts in witness evidence, particularly paragraph 29 of Mr Michael Hull’s statement, CGR’s managing director.
  • The Court considered procedural powers to compel Defendants to request documents from Mr Hull, a third party witness.

Sanctions Highlights

  • — No sanctions implications identified in this litigation.

Emerging Risks

  • Potential evidentiary risk if sponsorship contracts explicitly name drivers, undermining Defendants’ position that sponsorships relate solely to teams.
  • Disclosure disputes may delay trial proceedings or complicate case management.
  • Reliance on third-party witnesses for document production introduces procedural uncertainty.

Geopolitical Impact

  • The case involves a US-based racing team and sponsors but is adjudicated in the UK Commercial Court.
  • Highlights cross-jurisdictional commercial litigation involving US entities (Alpa Racing USA LLC, PNC Bank, DHL) and UK legal processes.
  • Reflects ongoing UK court engagement with international commercial disputes, reinforcing London’s role as a global litigation hub.

Economic Intelligence

  • Sponsorship contracts in high-profile motorsports like IndyCar are commercially significant, involving major corporate sponsors (PNC Bank, DHL).
  • The case underscores the commercial value of driver-team relationships and sponsorship terms in sports marketing.
  • Potential impact on contractual transparency and sponsor-team-driver dynamics in motorsport sponsorship agreements.

Strategic Recommendations

  • Parties should carefully assess and document sponsorship contract terms regarding driver specificity to avoid evidentiary disputes.
  • Legal teams should prepare for third-party document production challenges and consider early engagement with witnesses controlling key documents.
  • Monitor developments in UK commercial court rulings on disclosure to anticipate procedural strategies.
  • Corporations sponsoring sports teams should clarify contract language on driver vs. team focus to mitigate litigation risks.

---

**Source Notes:** *Sanctions Intelligence Digest*, [https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/1825.html](https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/1825.html)

Brief metadata