Court drama as Ferrari accuse McLaren of 'shameless hypocrisy'

In the run-up to the FIA court of appeal hearing in London into the 'cool fuel' row, McLaren personnel - including Hamilton - insisted they did not want to win the title in the courtroom.

Yet that was in stark contrast to the submissions of lawyer Ian Mill QC, who today called for a reclassification of the championship.

That led to a sharp retort from Ferrari's legal representative Nigel Tozzi QC, defending the interests of the team and of Kimi Raikkonen, who claimed the drivers' title in the last race in Brazil.

"This is not the way a Formula One world championship should be won," said Tozzi towards the end of the four-hour tribunal. A verdict will be delivered tomorrow.

Tozzi added: "Mr Hamilton himself, potentially the only beneficiary, has said very clearly he does not want to win the championship this way.

"Mr Norbert Haug, head of Mercedes motorsport, has again gone on the record and said McLaren are not appealing in order to claim the championship. Mr Martin Whitmarsh [McLaren's chief executive] in an interview yesterday said finding a way to award the world drivers' title to Lewis retrospectively is not at all what this is about.

"It could be said McLaren are shameless hypocrites devoid of any integrity, or maybe what their representatives have said should be taken at face value.

"If what they want is clarity, then by all means let them have that, but do not allow them to have the title this way.

"It would be a serious injustice to Mr Raikkonen should the world title be taken away from him, a fact recognised by Mr Hamilton."

McLaren had appealed the verdict of the stewards at the season-ending Brazilian Grand Prix not to punish BMW Sauber and Williams for fuel irregularities.

Hamilton finished seventh behind race winner Raikkonen at Interlagos, missing out on the drivers' title by a point.

If the four judges presiding over the case opt to disqualify Nico Rosberg, Robert Kubica and Nick Heidfeld, who finished fourth, fifth and sixth respectively, they could promote Hamilton up the order, so handing him the drivers' title.

Mill pointed to 26 instances in Formula One history where there had been disqualifications followed by a championship reclassification.

"We offer no special plea on behalf of the team, but I ask you to do what normally happens," said Mill. "It's clear that the infringement of this rule did have a performance-enhancing effect. If you put in cool fuel it increases the horse power.

"The principle is clear: if there was a performance enhancement, there was a breach and there has to be a disqualification.

"I ask you to address this as though it was any team at any stage of the season.

"It cannot make a difference it was the last race of the season, and that it will decide the title.

"Invariably, whenever there has been a disqualification, there has been a reclassification."

Tozzi, however, argued against such an outcome, saying: "It would be damaging for the sport if the title were to be won this way. The fans would probably feel it had been achieved by grubby manoeuvring by the lawyers.

"As McLaren are fond of saying, the championship should be decided on the track and not in the courtroom."

The four judges will initially determine if McLaren's case is admissible.

If there is a case to answer, then they will look at the arguments surrounding the temperature of the fuel used in the BMW Sauber and William cars and whether there was a performance advantage.

Should the two teams be found guilty, only then will any potential sanction be imposed, and thereby a prospect of the championship classification being reviewed.