National Court
1. Though not having heard full argument on the point, it is our view that by reason of these regulations the appeal was inadmissible, the hearing was therefore a nullity, and the race place penalty stands.
2. It would be impractical to re-open the matter now. If the appeal was admissible, it has been adjudicated upon and the decision given within the 30-day time limit mandated by ISC 15.4.5. If it was not, the Stewards’ decisions regarding the fact of the breach of regulations and penalty remains valid.
For these reasons, if the appeal is admissible our reasons for dismissing it are as follows.
APPEAL- INTRODUCTION
3. Lucas Fluxa( car 7, Xcel Motorsport) and Jin Nakamura( car 4, Hitech Motorsport) are competitors in the GB3 Championship, round 1 of which took place on the Grand Prix circuit at Silverstone on 26th April 2026.
4. The briefest summary of the incident for which the penalty was imposed is as follows. Turn 9 on the Grand Prix Circuit is a right-handed corner. On the outside of the circuit, the track limit is defined by a continuous white line. A short distance before the point where the cars’ natural cornering line carries them to the outside of the circuit, there is a section of raised kerb with an asphalt run-off area beyond. On the last lap of the race Mr Nakamura( car 4) and Mr Fluxa( car 7) exited Turn 9 in very close proximity, with Mr Nakamura on the outside. Both cars moved from right to left, towards the outside of the circuit. Before Mr Nakamura reached the outside kerb, he crossed the white line and continued on the outside of the exit kerbs, rejoining the circuit once that section of kerb had been passed, and falling in behind Mr Fluxa.
5. The event being run under an international permit, the provisions of the FIA International Sporting Code(“ the Code”) apply. Appendix L, Chapter IV, Article 2 b of the Code provides,“ manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited.” The Stewards of the Competition considered the incident and concluded that Mr Fluxa had not left Mr Nakamura sufficient racing room on his outside and had crowded Mr Nakamura off the circuit. As a result, Mr Fluxa completed his overtake of Mr Nakamura.
6. In consequence, they imposed a 1-position race result penalty, effectively reversing the order in which the two drivers had taken the chequered flag.
7. Xcel Motorsport and Mr Fluxa now appeal against the Stewards’ decision.
THE APPEAL HEARING
8. In his written submissions as an interested party, Mr Blow argued( paragraph 2) that an appeal against a Stewards’ decision“ is not a simple re-hearing in which an appellant is entitled to re-argue its case” and that Xcel Motorsport had submitted no substantial new evidence but were relying on the same onboard footage and argument advanced earlier.
9. In our judgment, supported by Motorsport UK, Article 13 of the Code does provide that the procedure of an appeal to the National Court in these circumstances is by way of a re-hearing, in which the National Court may reach its own decisions whether the penalty or any other decision appealed against should be waived and, if necessary, the penalty mitigated or increased( see Article 15.6.1 of the Code).
10. The deference to be accorded to the decision of the Stewards is a separate matter. The Stewards are the principal finders of fact. Their decisions are made contemporaneously, and it is for them to assess the appropriate sanction. Accordingly, due deference should be given to such decisions, and a decision should only be reviewed when it has no regulatory basis and / or when it is obviously disproportionate. That approach has consistently been applied by the FIA International Court of Appeal. See, e. g., Case ICA-2018-01, Appeal brought by M-Sport Ford World Rally Team( GBR) against the Decision No. 7 dated 11 March 2018 of the Stewards of the Rally Guanajuato Mexico 2018 counting towards the 2018 World Rally Championship( WRC).
THE INCIDENT – DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
11. Mr Bonner submitted that the Stewards had taken an inappropriately narrow view of the incident in Turn 9, and that Turn 9 should not be considered in isolation, but in combination with Turn 8, as the manner in which Turn 8 is exited dictates how Turn 9 can be negotiated. He argued that examining the incident in the context of the cars’ movements from Turn 7 and into Turns 8 and 9, a different picture emerged as to who was the overtaking driver and, applying the series’ driving standards guidelines, where responsibility for giving room lay. We are grateful to Mr Bonner for the detailed written submissions, photographs and stills from the moving footage also presented.
12. Cars 4 and 7 were engaged in close, competitive racing, not just between themselves, but with cars 3 and 21.
28 Revolution Magazine