There were no cars on show, no deafening V8s screaming round tarmac tracks, no motorhomes and no champagne involved - apart, that is, from the preprandial glass taken by the four judges once a long morning of deliberations was over.

This was Formula One’s “other” setting - the court of law, in this case the FIA’s Court of Appeal, which was sitting to hear McLaren Mercedes’s case that three cars belonging to BMW Sauber and Williams should be thrown out of the Brazilian Grand Prix for using illegal “cool fuel”.

The arcane discussion of fuel temperatures in on-board tanks, in fuel rigs, in hoses even, and the legalistic debate over whether McLaren’s appeal was admissible under Formula One rules, would be a matter for insomniacs were it not for the important point that, by this route, Lewis Hamilton could become world champion.

At issue was whether or not the stewards were right at the Brazilian Grand Prix last month not to disqualify the Williams and BMW drivers, Robert Kubica, Nick Heidfeld and Nico Rosberg, despite finding that the fuel put into their cars at pit-stops was colder than allowed under the rules.

The lawyers had the track to themselves, so to speak. In the sixth-floor conference room of an American law firm in London, they went at it politely but ruthlessly as they fought over the destiny of this year’s championship.

Going into the hearing, the results of which will be announced in Paris this afternoon, there was little expectation outside McLaren that the offending drivers would be disqualified or that, even if they were, the results of the championship would be changed, giving the title to Hamilton (who does not want it by default) at the expense of Kimi Raikkonen (whose supporters would no doubt see him as the victim of a huge injustice).

In the offices of Sidley Austin LLP yesterday, little happened to change that view as Ian Mill, QC, counsel for McLaren, went about his business. In recent days the Woking-based team have tried to defend their decision to press ahead with this action on the ground that they are doing it in the interests of the sport, rather than as a means of winning a title that they have already lost on the track.

Mill thus had a tightrope to walk as he underlined that disqualifying the three drivers should also result in reclassifying the race. “I ask you to address this case as though it was taking place at any time, at any stage of the season,” he told the judges. “The drivers’ championship can’t be a material factor . . . what we say is that whenever there has been a disqualification there has been a reclassification. We merely ask you to do what normally happens.”

It seemed a bad fight for McLaren to have picked as they found themselves outnumbered three-to-one by the assembled lawyers representing Ferrari, BMW and Williams. BMW’s man, Ian Meakin, accused McLaren of “naked opportunism” in trying to pursue an illegal appeal by the “back door”. Ferrari’s Nigel Tozzi, QC, went much farther, as might have been expected, suggesting that McLaren might be seen as “shameless hypocrites, devoid of any integrity”. But Tozzi, who has already scored one big win against McLaren this year when he played a key role in handing them the biggest fine in sporting history (about £500,000) for possessing Ferrari technical secrets, was treading a fine line himself as he condemned McLaren’s case.

“It would be highly damaging for the sport if the title was to be won this way, with the fans probably feeling it was more about grubby manoeuvring by the lawyers than by the drivers’ skill,” he said. “As McLaren are fond of saying themselves, the championship should be decided on the track, not in the court.”