McLaren contract ‘based on lies’ about F1 seat, Alex Palou tells High Court

Driver Alex Palou has told the High Court that his contract with McLaren was “based on lies and false impressions” as it did “not tell me the truth” about whether he could drive in Formula One.

Mr Palou and two companies connected to him are being sued for around 21 million US dollars (£15.5 million) by McLaren Indy LLC and McLaren Racing, which run the Arrow McLaren IndyCar team and McLaren’s F1 team.

The Spaniard agreed in 2022 that he would drive for Arrow McLaren in 2024, 2025 and 2026, but breached the deal in 2023.

Mr Palou admits to the breach but disputes that he should pay damages at a trial in London.

Giving evidence in court, the four-time IndyCar champion said he only signed for McLaren as “all I was interested in was the F1 opportunity” and “my goal was to follow my dream and drive in F1”.

In his witness statement, he said that McLaren Racing chief executive Zak Brown “told me he believed we could make it happen and that he would give me all the preparation I needed to be an F1 driver for McLaren”.

The driver said that shortly after announcing he would be driving for Arrow McLaren in the summer of 2022, he saw tweets from current McLaren F1 driver Oscar Piastri that the Australian would be joining its F1 team.

Mr Palou said this was the “first time things changed” and left him feeling “very upset, worried and angry”, despite this being before he signed the McLaren deal in October 2022.

He said: “I now consider that Zak made me think that there was an opportunity to have the full-time F1 seat as a negotiating tactic to get me to sign for McLaren’s IndyCar team.”

In court, Mr Palou said that McLaren “did not tell me the truth” and was “misleading me” over whether he would be offered an F1 seat, which led him to return to his former team, Chip Ganassi Racing, in 2023.

He said: “If I need to stay in IndyCar, then I need to stay with a team that gave me the chance to be an IndyCar champion.

“I thought I had the right to terminate an agreement that was based on lies and false impressions.”

Paul Goulding KC, for McLaren, said to Mr Palou that under the terms of the 2022 deal, the company had a “right but not an obligation” to put him into F1.

The barrister said: “Even though you signed a contract, you had no intention of doing that (driving for Arrow McLaren) if F1 did not work out for you.”

Mr Palou replied: “My intention was to get to F1, following all the opportunities that Mr Brown said I was going to have.”

When asked by Mr Goulding whether he had “misled McLaren and Zak Brown through all of this”, Mr Palou said: “All I was interested in was the F1 opportunity, but getting all these opportunities would have led me to be happy and led me to get what I was promised.”

Mr Goulding later asked the driver whether he had “strung McLaren along”, to which Mr Palou said: “Absolutely not. I think you are twisting the story.”

In his witness statement, Mr Palou said that McLaren showed a “lack of commitment” to getting him into F1, despite his contract making him an F1 reserve driver.

The 28-year-old said: “I had the F1 reserve role, but I did not really see the commitment from Zak any more to get me to F1 full-time.

“I did not feel that those plans were genuine.”

In his evidence, Mr Brown said Mr Palou “effectively rolled a grenade into the room and let it go off” through his departure.

He also said that while he believed Mr Palou could be a “real talent” in F1, the driver knew that he was “unable to make promises” about an F1 career, and “always knew exactly what the opportunities were and were not”.

Mr Goulding previously told the trial in written submissions that Mr Palou was a “serial contract breaker” and that his departure had “serious and enduring consequences”.

It is seeking millions that it claims arose from the renegotiation of sponsorship deals, lost future revenue and other sums.

Nick De Marco KC, for Mr Palou, said in written submissions that the renegotiation of sponsorship deals was not “anywhere near as bad” as had been claimed, and that the damages claim was “vastly inflated”.

The trial before Mr Justice Picken is due to conclude in November, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.