The National Court is the UK Disciplinary, Investigatory and Appeal Court as required by the Statutes of the FIA and the International Sporting Code. The Court is independent of Motorsport UK and administered by an external lawyer and the judges are drawn from a panel of experienced motorsport lawyers and suitably qualified motorsport professionals

Sitting on 13th November 2025 Guy Spollon( Chair), John Hopwood, Nigel Thorne Case No. J2025 / 38 Motorsport UK versus Joel Wren TECHNICAL ELIGBILITY APPEAL

The essential facts are:

1. On 11th October 2025 the BRSCC held an Event at Silverstone including the Mini Seven – Goodyear Mini Challenge supported by Mini Spares.

2. Joel Wren( car 741) protested car 746 driven by Oliver Birkett on the basis that there was a breach of TR5.19.6.1 of the Mini 7 Championship Regulations( Technical). The regulation states that:“ Standard production alternator and charging system must remain unaltered and operational. Alternator must be similar in type and design to those fitted to the Rover Production Mini …”

3. Joel Wren contended that: a) The Birkett car was fitted with a billeted aluminium alternator pulley which differs from the original Rover production steel pulley. b) The alloy pulley was wider and did not run on the original position due to the belt drive kit fitted. Julian Affleck, Eligibility Scrutineer for the Mini 7 Racing Club, rejected the Protest stating that: c)“ The Regulation does not state the size or dimensions for the alternator pulley and therefore does not detract from the regulation as written.” d)“ The alternator and charging system is as standard and operational.”

4. The matter came before the Court by way of Appeal on the basis that the alternator pulley is an integral component of the charging system and must remain of standard production specification.

5. It was the conclusion of the Court that: a) The Championship Regulations clearly state that the standard production alternator and charging system must remain unaltered. b) The alternator pulley forms an integral part of the charging system not least because without it the alternator cannot function. c) The pulley in question is a non-production billeted aluminium part. d) Unless a modification is explicitly permitted in the regulations it must be regarded as prohibited. e) In the premises: I. The Appeal should be upheld, and the scrutineer’ s original ruling be overturned. II. The Appellant’ s Protest Fee should be returned. III. The National Court’ s findings amount to an Eligibility Decision( Non-Compliance Report) for the purposes of NCR Ch. 2 App. 8, the National Court having inspected the relevant sealed part and determined its non-compliance with the Technical Regulations. IV. This matter is referred back to the relevant Judicial body, namely the Clerk of the Course, to hold a Judicial Hearing to determine if there is any exceptional reason why a disqualification penalty should not be imposed.

Guy Spollon, Chair 9th December 2025

36

Revolution- January 2026