NATIONAL COURT
10. Callum Eason, in his evidence, spoke to the in-truck video recordings and explained his strategy for overtaking Evans, commencing with a good exit from Graham Hill Bend. He explained that the trucks naturally run wide, and he believed this would happen to Evans at Clearways such that he could make an overtaking move up the inside. He considered that he had sufficient overlap at all relevant times and that, in accordance with the said Regulation, Evans should have given him racing room instead of which Evans turned in on him thereby causing the collision.
11. Jake Evans, in his evidence, asserted that Eason had not achieved an overlap sufficient to require him to deviate from his racing line by giving Eason racing room. He referred to the video recordings but in particular the live feed showing the events leading up to the collision itself.
12. Both drivers gave evidence in answer to questions posed as to the positioning of axles relative to other visible features of the truck cabs.
13. In addition to the oral evidence of each party the Court has seen a map of the Brands Hatch Indy Circuit in order to consider the point at which one might be thought to have left the part of the circuit named McLaren Curve and“ entered the corner” Clearways before the track flows into Clark Curve.
Decision
14. Both parties to this Appeal accepted that the determining factor in making a decision would be the Court’ s interpretation of the video evidence, five recordings from the cameras mounted within the two trucks and the two from external cameras. From the multiple images available to it, the Court notes in particular the recording taken from the outside of the track at Clearways and that from the camera mounted on the right-hand side of Truck 10.
15. The Court understands that the time taken to repair the Appellant’ s truck after the restart delayed his departure from the pit lane to rejoin the race for such duration that the Appellant was unable to complete a sufficient number of laps to qualify as a finisher and did not win the Championship. The evidence of Wayne Eason was that Callum“ wanted to finish on a high rather than to just coast to a championship win in the final race.”
16. While noting what may be perceived as such an admirable intent, the Court sees no reason to reach a conclusion which differs in any way from the Decision the subject of this Appeal. That is to say that it finds the Appellant responsible for causing the collision and confirms the penalty of a Reprimand with two penalty points.
17. The appeal having failed, the appellant is ordered to pay a contribution to the costs of the Court in the sum of one thousand pounds Sterling(£ 1,000.00).
A. Scott Andrews, Chair 15th February 2026
PROVIDING SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE TO PROJECTS THAT ENSURE A SAFER SPORT, ENABLING THE UK MOTORSPORT COMMUNITY TO UNDERTAKE THEIR TASKS SAFELY AND ENCOURAGING HIGH STANDARDS WITH THE SPORT’ S VOLUNTEERS.
Motorsport has the power to inspire thousands across the UK with high-speed and high-performance thrills, each and every week. There is also an inherent risk associated with this kind of action.
Our vision is to create a safer sport, empowering our people to perform at the highest level and providing them with the equipment and tools to succeed.
We will do everything we can to make motorsport events held by clubs and affiliated organisations as safe as possible for competitors, officials and spectators.
britishmotorsporttrust. org
Revolution- March 2026
47