Felipe Massa's High Court claims are a "misguided attempt" to reopen the result of the 2008 drivers' championship, in which he was the runner-up to Lewis Hamilton, lawyers for former Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone have said.
Hamilton's first F1 world championship is the subject of legal action, with Brazilian former F1 driver Massa bringing a £64 million legal claim against Formula One Management, governing body the FIA and Ecclestone at the court in London.
Ecclestone, the FIA and Formula One Management are defending against the claims, and on Wednesday they applied for the case to be thrown out.
Massa says he is the rightful winner of the 2008 title, which he lost by a single point after a deliberate crash at the Singapore Grand Prix.
Renault staged a win for Fernando Alonso by ordering Nelson Piquet Jr. to crash, which brought out a safety car and meant Massa, who was leading the race for Ferrari, finished 13th after his strategy was compromised.
After the crash in Singapore, Massa drove away prematurely from a pit stop with a fuel hose still attached to his car, knocking down a member of his team and driving into the path of another car.
The following season, Piquet revealed that he had been under instruction by his bosses to crash deliberately.
Ecclestone, who was the boss of F1 for four decades before he was deposed in 2017, suggested in 2023 that the sport's executives were aware of the cover-up before the 2008 campaign concluded.
Massa is bringing claims for breach of contract or duty, with his lawyers saying that Ecclestone knew the crash was deliberate and that he and the FIA failed to investigate it.
On Wednesday, lawyers for the defendants said Massa performed poorly in the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix, ultimately leading to him losing the championship and added that the claim had been brought too late.
In written submissions, Ecclestone lawyer David Quest KC said Massa's claims "are a misguided attempt to reopen the results of the 2008 F1 drivers' championship."
He added: "Mr Massa argues that, but for the FIA's handling of the crash, he would have won the drivers' championship.
"These declarations treat the court as a sports 'debating club', asking it to embark upon a counterfactual exercise concerning the 'refereeing' of a sporting event which took place nearly 17 years ago."
Ecclestone's lawyer continued that Massa's claim would "deprive Mr Hamilton of his 2008 title" despite the Briton being "equally exposed to the crash."
John Mehrzad KC, for the FIA, said Massa's claim is as "torturous as it is overly ambitious" and "conspicuously overlooks a catalogue of his own errors."
Anneliese Day KC, for Formula One Management, said in written submissions that the claim "will fail."
She added that anyone reading the details of the claim would be left with the "incorrect" impression that the deliberate crash, followed by the deployment of the safety car, was to blame for Massa's failure to win any points in the race.
Day continued: "In truth, it was not the deployment of the safety car which changed the course of history for Mr Massa, but rather a series of subsequent racing errors by him and his team during the remaining 47 laps of the race.
"The simple fact is that over the course of both the Singapore Grand Prix and across the 2008 season, Mr Hamilton outperformed Mr Massa and everyone else."
Massa, who attended court on Wednesday, is claiming damages for loss of earnings and sponsorship.
He is also seeking declarations that the FIA acted in breach of its own regulations and that if it had not done so, it would have cancelled or adjusted the results of the Singapore Grand Prix and he would have won the drivers' championship.
Arguing that the case should not be thrown out, and should go to a full trial, Nick De Marco KC, for Massa, said in written submissions that the defendants "cannot establish that Mr Massa's claims have no real prospect of success."
He added: "Mr Massa has a real prospect of succeeding on all of the grounds."
The barrister also said that "whether the FIA breached its duties is a fact-sensitive issue on which the court should not conduct a mini trial."
The hearing before Mr Justice Jay is due to conclude on Friday, with a ruling likely at a later date.