The FIA was accused in front of its Court of Appeal yesterday of deliberately misrepresenting the views of one of its former chief stewards in a bid to undermine Lewis Hamilton's case that he was wrongly demoted from winner to third place at this year's Belgian Grand Prix.

In a surprise submission to the court, which will only fuel the belief among Hamilton's supporters that the sport's governing body is biased against him, McLaren revealed that FIA officials misrepresented the views of Tony Scott Andrews, the chief steward at last year's Japanese Grand Prix, in correspondence sent only three days before yesterday's hearing.

In an e-mail sent to McLaren's lawyers on Friday, the FIA claimed that Scott Andrews had admitted that he had been wrong to impose a time penalty on Tonio Liuzzi, the Italian driver, in Japan and that Scott Andrews had confirmed as much in a phone conversation with Charlie Whiting, the Formula One race director, that day.

The issue is critical to the admissibility of Hamilton's case, on which the court will publish its findings today, because McLaren were relying heavily on the decision in Japan as a precedent. As he emerged from the day-long hearing, Hamilton, who acquitted himself with aplomb under cross-examination by a lawyer from Ferrari, made clear that he saw this as the most important element of McLaren's case. “Did you all catch on with the e-mail?” he said.

The court heard that McLaren were not content to take the FIA's word on this critical matter and sent officials to Brands Hatch race track in Kent on Sunday, when Scott Andrews was officiating at a touring car meeting, to check if he had agreed that he had made a mistake. Scott Andrews was adamant that he had not and offered to put his views in writing to the court.

In a submission that makes embarrassing reading for the FIA, which has come under fire for its perceived bias against McLaren and Hamilton, Scott Andrews said that he was “extremely surprised by the content” of the FIA's e-mail, which he described as “grossly inaccurate and misleading”. He also said that at no time during his conversation with Whiting had he been asked if he had made a mistake in imposing a time penalty on Liuzzi. “Had he [Whiting] done so, the answer would have been ‘no',” Scott Andrews wrote.

In his closing speech to the court, Mark Phillips, QC, representing McLaren, described the matter as an “unfortunate exchange”. Clearly not wishing to rub the FIA's nose in it, he added: “I ask you to reflect on that when you come to consider the way in which certain members of the FIA conducted themselves. I won't say any more than that.”

The hearing, to which McLaren sent an 11-strong team, featured Hamilton's debut as a legal street-fighter and the 23-year-old World Championship leader delivered some classic lines as he battled with Nigel Tozzi, QC, representing Ferrari. At one point he shot back to Tozzi: “Are you a racing driver? No. So you would have absolutely no comprehension of what I would have done.”

Later, when Tozzi suggested to Hamilton that he stop “personalising” the argument when Tozzi was only representing the views of the Ferrari team, Hamilton again went on the attack. “I beg to differ,” he said.

Hamilton possibly overstepped the mark when he boasted in response to another question from Tozzi: “I'm a racing driver. I've been racing since I was eight years old and I know pretty much every single manoeuvre in the book and that's why I'm the best at my job.”

Ferrari and a lawyer for the FIA argued that Hamilton had gained an advantage when he cut the Bus Stop chicane in the closing laps of the race at Spa-Francorchamps as he battled Kimi Raikkonen, of Ferrari, for the lead in the rain. Paul Harris for the FIA said that this was “utterly unarguable and self-evident”. He also told the court that Hamilton had then “ceded part of the advantage, but not the entire advantage” he had gained, before attacking Raikkonen again.

In comments that will strike a hollow note with some of Hamilton's followers, Harris said that the stewards in Spa had shown their judgment, experience and neutrality. “They don't have an axe to grind; they are not championship contenders, but they do their best in difficult circumstances,” Harris said.

Phillips said that Hamilton had no choice but to cut the chicane. “He did the right thing,” Phillips said. “When he rejoined the track he did the right thing again and before the team reminded him [on the radio] he needed to give the position back.”

If Hamilton and McLaren are successful in their appeal and he is restored as winner of the race in Belgium, Hamilton's World Championship lead over Felipe Massa, of Ferrari, will jump from one point to seven with four races remaining, starting with the Singapore Grand Prix this weekend.

Admissibility still the issue

The FIA Court of Appeal hearing in Paris heard detailed submissions yesterday about the way Lewis Hamilton drove in the final, thrilling minutes of this year's Belgian Grand Prix at Spa-Francorchamps, with the use of telemetry evidence, video replays and testimony from most of the key players, including Hamilton. But all of that may turn out to be irrelevant.

The most likely outcome of McLaren's attempt to overturn the stewards' decision to demote Hamilton from winner to third place is that the five judges - from Spain, Monaco, Austria, the Netherlands and Switzerland - will rule that McLaren's case is inadmissible. Why? Because the punishment imposed was an uncontestable retrospective “drive-through” penalty.

Mark Phillips, QC, the McLaren lawyer, tried hard to convince the court that Hamilton had been given a time penalty, which, in one sense, he had in the form of a 25-second addition to his race time. But Paul Harris for the FIA was on stronger ground when he argued that the stewards had imposed a time penalty only because it was applied within five laps of the end of the race.

As Harris pointed out, in the document giving notice of their decision, the stewards in Spa noted that they were imposing a “drive-through” penalty. Thus, after a long day in court, Hamilton and McLaren looked unlikely to have overcome this obstacle in the way of their case.