Prior to the ’cool fuel’ case being heard at the London offices of law firm Sidley Austin, McLaren had been at pains to stress they were not chasing the world title through the courts.

If that was indeed the case, then somebody should have told their own counsel, Ian Mill QC, as he summed up his argument by urging the judges “to do what normally happens”.

Mill had highlighted the fact that in 26 previous instances in F1’s history, disqualification had led to reclassification.

He implored the judges to disqualify the BMW Sauber and Williams cars from the season-ending Brazilian Grand Prix for a breach of the rules relating to fuel irregularities.

“The principle is clear – if there was a performance enhancement, there was a breach and there has to be a disqualification,” said Mill.

“Invariably, whenever there has been a disqualification, there has been a reclassification.”

The Williams of Nico Rosberg and BMW Saubers of Robert Kubica and Nick Heidfeld finished fourth, fifth and sixth respectively at Interlagos, with Hamilton seventh.

If the trio are disqualified, Hamilton could move up to fourth, and so pinch the title from Ferrari’s Kimi Raikkonen who won the crown on the track.

Mill’s submission, that had contradicted the words of Hamilton, McLaren’s F1 CEO Martin Whitmarsh and Mercedes motorsport boss Norbert Haug, forced Whitmarsh into making a statement two hours after the hearing.

“As I made clear prior to the appeal, the team was seeking to clarify the regulatory uncertainty that arose from a decision of the stewards at the Brazilian Grand Prix, and not to win the drivers’ world championship,” insisted Whitmarsh.

“Our lawyer’s argument that an appropriate penalty would be a disqualification of the cars is based on the fact that this is ordinarily what has occurred during the last 20 years in Formula One when there was a breach of a technical regulation during a race.

“Consequently, whilst this was the only appropriate argument from a legal point of view, it’s not our ultimate goal in respect of today’s hearing – we just want rule clarification.”

Hill’s comments, though, were pounced upon by Ferrari’s lawyer, Nigel Tozzi QC, the man who successfully argued his team’s case in the ’spygate’ saga that led to McLaren being fined a sporting record £50million and stripped of all constructors’ points.

Tozzi accused McLaren of “naked opportunism” and suggested their motives for making the appeal were for anything but clarity.

“It could be said McLaren are shameless hypocrites devoid of any integrity, or maybe what their representatives have said should be taken at face value,” said Tozzi.

“If what they want is clarity, then by all means let them have that, but do not allow them to have the world championship this way

“It would be a serious injustice to Mr Raikkonen should the world title be taken away from him, and highly damaging for the sport.

“The fans would probably feel it had been achieved by grubby manoeuvring by the lawyers rather than by skill on the track.

“As McLaren are fond of saying: The championship should be decided on the track and not in the courtroom.”