America's Cup: Ratcliffe downplays threats and claims in Knight-Fight
by Richard Gladwell Sail-World NZ 15 Jul 14:59 BST
INEOS Britannia - Race Day 1 - America's Cup Match 2024 - Barcelona © Ian Roman / America's Cup
The latest (and probably the last) response in the ongoing legal spat between Sir Jim Ratcliffe and Sir Ben Ainslie has just been released by the UK Admiralty Court.
The Reply filed by INEOS Racing appears to just reinforce earlier claims made between the two parties, and their respective legal positions remain unchanged.
Athena Racing was the team of the Challenger of Record, the Royal Yacht Squadron, for the 2024 America's Cup in Barcelona - and continues in that role for the 2027 America's Cup in Naples. However, if INEOS Racing is successful in its claim, then the British team could be without its preferred AC75 and would need to reach an accommodation with Ratcliffe or get another AC75 in the so-called "secondary market".
INEOS Racing is maintaining its position that at the end of the 2024 America's Cup in Barcelona, Athena Racing was required to hand back all INEOS-funded assets, which include the AC75 raced by the British team in the 37th match for the America's Cup.
Ratcliffe's INEOS Racing downplays many of the "explosive" assertions made by Ainslie's Athena Racing, in its previous Defence of the UNEOS claim.
Typical is the response to the "scorched earth" claim made by Athena during a meeting between themselves and INEOS:
it is admitted that Mr Nevin indicated that Sir Jim would not back down (and had only ever done so in a dispute concerning the People's Republic of China) and in that context referred to"scorched earth", but it is denied that these comments would reasonably have been understood by Sir Ben as a "threat" of anything other than the Claimant enforcing its legal rights to the fullest extent possible (including, for example, by not renewing the Agreement and by instructing the Defendant to make a transfer of assets pursuant to clause 4.2.7). Mr Nevin's words were intended to be, and would reasonably have been understood to be, used in a figurative rather than a literal sense.
Similarly with the claim of imprisonment of Athena Racing staff at their Turweston base in UK: "Mr Fellows [INEOS} caused the glass doors to the reception area of the building to be padlocked to stop anyone entering the building and, when he did so, he did not know or believe that he was locking anyone inside the building and did not intend to detain anyone. On the Claimant's own case .... he did not in fact imprison anyone, since there were alternative exit routes. Further and in any event, Mr Fellows was not authorised by the Claimant to detain anyone"
The lockout from the Mercedes F1 IT facilities is admitted by INEOS, who counter that it was a legitimate action as the IT agreement between the two parties had expired.
At this juncture, it does not seem that the parties are further advanced with their claims, and the situation is at a stalemate.
The agreement between the two parties is not contained in any documents available publicly through the High Court, and in the absence of that document, it is not possible to see the claims in their proper context.
It is not known when the Hearing will be held, whether there is an arrangement available to fast-track the proceedings, or indeed whether an arrangement can be mediated between the parties.