When Pitpass contacted the leading law firm Collyer Bristow for an update on the latest developments in the Group Lotus vs 1 Malaysia F1 case, associate Tim Lowles was only too happy to give his opinion.

"The ban on media reporting in the Group Lotus vs 1 Malaysia F1 case - for reasons of sub judice - is interesting," he said. "What it means is, for the last fortnight since the trial began in the UK High Court, no reporters have been able to report on actions within the courtroom or any of the high profile names invited to give evidence.

"Sub judice is introduced when the actions of one hearing may prejudice the outcome of other proceedings," he continued. "It is usually used when there is a criminal trial taking place and juries may be influenced by what they read in the media. In this case, it may be that the judge was playing it safe and did not wish the evidence presented in his courtroom to impact on any other court cases in which either party is involved worldwide.

"However, despite this ban on reporting, it has been suggested in media outlets that the judge - having heard the arguments from both teams - will now take a further four weeks to consider the evidence before giving judgment," Lowles revealed. "This is not unusual. In fact, in a case in which the judge has been presented with witness statements, documentation and personal testimony from a variety of sources over a two week period, it would not be unheard of for consideration to take longer than the four weeks suggested.

"Whatever the ultimate decision by the judge, we're likely to see at least another two - if not three - Grand Prix this season with four cars with Lotus branding lining up on the starting grid. This uncertainty will continue to hamper the teams commercially as is evidenced by Tony Fernandes' recent comments that the case has already cost his team sponsorship."