Having read the published judgment, there are no more stunning revelations. Because the arguments in the court were confined to the matter of applicability of the arbitration award in Australia, there are no juicy revelations about driver contracts, finances etc. The rulings are brief, as explained by the judge, due to lack of time.
What is interesting is that the original arbitration ruling on March 2nd was made under UK law, not Swiss law, which is what I would have expected since the Sauber team is based in Switzerland.
The court was not impressed by the argument that because Giedo van der Garde BV (the contracting entity with Sauber for the driver contract) and Giedo van der Garde are two separate entities, that the ruling does not really apply to Giedo Van Der Garde the person. Well yes. If I heard that argument in front of me in a court, I would be tempted to respond “nice try…and do you think I came down from the hillside with the last rainstorm?”
The ruling pretty comprehensively demolishes all of the other arguments from Sauber. It will be interesting to see what new arguments they come up with in the afternoon appeal hearing.