Held that Palou’s refusal to honour the contract amounted to a clear breach.
Accepted that McLaren had suffered significant commercial loss, including the need to pay higher sums to other drivers once Palou was no longer available.
Awarded the team about US$10.2 million immediately, plus an additional US$2–2.5 million to be determined by expert evidence – a total exceeding $12 million.
Some components of McLaren’s claim did fail. The court did not award damages for certain alleged F1‑related losses, “wasted expenditure”, or recovery of Palou’s signing‑on bonus. But the overall result was a substantial vindication of McLaren’s position that a signed contract with an elite performer cannot be treated as a disposable option.
Palou, for his part, maintained that McLaren had exaggerated its losses and insisted the damages reflected an inflated assessment of harm, particularly given the success of the driver who eventually took his place. He said he was considering his options following the decision.
The ‘sold a dream’ argument – and why it didn’t save him
A central plank of Palou’s defence was that he had been misled about the genuineness of the F1 opportunity.
He alleged that Brown and McLaren had “sold him a dream” of an F1 seat – a dream he later concluded was founded on “lies and false impressions”. Once he believed that pathway was illusory, he said, he decided not to honour the deal and chose stability at CGR instead.
McLaren flatly rejected that characterisation. Its counsel argued that the team had genuinely intended to support his F1 ambitions, but that there were no guarantees: any move into a race seat would depend on performance, vacancies and commercial circumstances. The evidence of Palou being factored into contingency plans for Norris and Piastri, and as a potential replacement if Piastri faltered, was used to demonstrate that the pathway was real – albeit conditional.