Athena’s defence against Ineos: what it tells us about Ainslie vs Ratcliffe

Sir Ben Ainslie’s Athena Racing has launched a vigorous defence against Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos Racing over its claim of ownership of the AC75 that is planned to represent a British challenge for the 38th America’s Cup next year.

The defence papers, released by the High Court of Justice to The Foil, include a number of incendiary claims by Athena over the conduct of Ineos representatives not only in the wake of Ainslie and Ratcliffe’s public split last year but even during the partnership’s ultimately unsuccessful bid to win the Cup at AC37 in Barcelona in 2024.

Here’s a breakdown of the key accusations made by Athena against Ineos, as the row between Britain’s most famous sailor and best-known entrepreneur turns white hot.

Amid the 41-page defence document, details of how bitter and personal the split has become are spelt out, with Athena stating: “The Claimant’s conduct during the term of the Agreement [between the two companies] and subsequently has been, by any objective standard, reprehensible and improper.”

The most striking revelation centres on an incident that played out “a matter of hours before” the first race of AC37, on 12 October 2024.

“Sir Ben was very shortly due to skipper the Ineos Britannia and lead the team’s challenge for AC37,” reads the claim, when “Jean-Claude Blanc and Mr [Rob] Nevin [Ineos Sport chairman] of the Claimant attended a meeting at Sir Ben’s office at the Defendant’s base in Barcelona. During the course of the meeting, Mr Nevin and Mr Blanc demanded that, in order for the Claimant to provide funding for future America’s Cup campaigns for the Defendant, it required the Defendant to transfer to the Claimant all of its assets and intellectual property. 

“Mr Nevin stated to Sir Ben: ‘This is what Jim wants. We have a phrase at Ineos: ‘scorched earth’. It means that if you don’t give Jim what he wants, he will burn your house down’ (or words to that effect). 

“In response, Sir Ben attempted to defuse the situation by reminding Mr Nevin that the first AC37 race would be beginning shortly. Mr Nevin then reiterated and expanded upon his threat, explaining that the only instance in which Sir Jim had backed down from a dispute was one concerning the state of the People’s Republic of China.”

Athena claim the threat was made “without any contractual basis, but as a hostile negotiating tactic” and was “unduly aggressive and uncommercial.”

The defence also spells out an incident which occurred on 23 January 2025, as the Athena/Ineos partnership was in the process of its public breakdown.

The document states Raymond Fellows of Ineos arrived at Athena’s base in Turweston, Northamptonshire with an unnamed individual “believed to be a security contractor”. Via a phone call to Ineos’ then-senior counsel, Athena CFO Matt Robinson was informed “the Defendant was not entitled to use the site, or any assets or equipment following the completion of AC37; the Claimant was the full beneficial owner of the lease of the site, as well as all assets and equipment contained therein; and the Defendant was prohibited from using the site, the assets or equipment without the Claimant’s consent, which was not given.”

It is claimed that Robinson and his staff were ordered to leave the site and to “leave their laptops and any other assets inside.” When they refused, the defence claims Fellows “demanded to search the bags of the Defendant’s employees as they left the site at the end of the working day.

“The following day, 24 January 2025,” the defence continues, “Mr Fellows returned with two associates (believed to be security contractors), and requested from the building’s landlord, David Owen, the keys to the Defendant’s site. Mr Owen refused this request.

“Shortly thereafter, and in circumstances where the site was routinely locked from the inside, Mr Fellows and his associates proceeded to chain and padlock the doors to the Defendant’s site from the outside, and affixed ‘No Entry’ signs. In so doing, Mr Fellows and his associates… imprisoned the Defendant’s employees in the site without any lawful authority.”

It is said that Robinson and Ainslie, who was also present that day, “were subsequently able to exit the site via the fire escape and persuaded Mr Fellows to remove the chains and padlocks, by informing him that his actions were intimidating the Defendant’s members of staff and causing health and safety risks. Mr Fellows and his associates subsequently left the property.”

Further revelations pull the Mercedes Formula 1 team, of which Ineos is a shareholder, into the row.

It is said that on 22 January 2025 Mercedes F1 “removed the Defendant’s access to its Office365 tenancy and IT systems, thereby (a) locking the Defendant out of its own Office365 tenancy and IT systems, (b) preventing the Defendant from accessing its own data and systems, and (c) preventing the Defendant from operating altogether.” 

Further to that lockout, it is said the F1 team “without permission or consent, accessed, misappropriated and used the Defendant’s passwords to transfer several domain names, including the ‘ineosbritannia.com’ domain name, out of the Defendant’s domain registry. MercedesF1 did not restore the Defendant’s access to its IT facilities until July 2025, following significant correspondence and the threat of injunctive relief by the Defendant.”

Athena also includes in its defence details of how Ineos threatened to set up a rival team for AC38, which would have broken a non-compete clause in the two companies’ agreement.

Athena is said to have learnt of Ineos’s rival plan on 9 January 2025, via a WhatsApp message to Ainslie from Nevin. A press release was subsequently issues on 23 January 2025, while on the same day Ratcliffe is said to have written to the other America’s Cup teams informing them that “the Ineos Britannia team will participate in AC38”, Sir Jim adding that he would “be keen to be involved in any discussions about the structure of AC38 and the America’s Cup more generally. With the financial, technical and commercial firepower of the global Ineos group, I feel we would have much to contribute.”

As The Foil explained in our previous breakdown of Ineos’s claim against Athena, the question of which company owns the AC75 raced under the Ineos Britannia banner at AC37 is wrapped up in UK tax considerations. This element looks set to provide a pillar of the Athena defence when – it seems almost certainly not to be if – the case comes to court.

The Athena defence explains that “significant UK tax allowances and credits” were claimed by the team to a total of “£11.2m over the course of the AC35 campaign, £8.1m over the course of the AC36 campaign and £14.1m over the course of the AC37 campaign”. Such credits and allowance could only be secured if assets were “owned by the Defendant”.

Another key battleground will likely be the legal interpretation of what amounts to the closing of the AC37 campaign and the wind-down of the team following the Barcelona races. In essence, Athena insist they never stopped operating as a going concern in the wake of securing new funding via Oakley Capital.

Meanwhile, Ainslie presses on with his AC38 campaign for July 2027 under the new GB1 banner. Whether by next summer he still has at his disposal the AC75 Athena have built, developed and previously campaigned remains to be seen.