A former British investment banker who served prison time in Hong Kong after a fatal Ferrari crash is attempting to bring a multimillion-pound legal claim against the luxury car manufacturer, arguing that a brake defect caused the collision that destroyed his career.
Robert Ebert has asked the High Court in London to order Ferrari to release internal documents that he believes could show the company was aware of braking issues before his criminal trial in Hong Kong.
Fatal 2015 Crash Led to Conviction and Prison Sentence
The case stems from a crash in June 2015, when Ebert was driving his Ferrari 458 Spider to work in Hong Kong. His vehicle left the road and struck security guard Ku Lap-chi, who died from his injuries.
Ebert was prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving. Throughout the criminal proceedings, he maintained that the vehicle’s brakes had suddenly failed, leaving him unable to stop the car.
Despite his defence, he was convicted and sentenced to 22 months in prison, serving 14 months before being deported to the United Kingdom.
Defence Claims Trial Was Influenced by Ferrari Testimony
During a recent hearing before the High Court, Ebert’s legal team argued that expert evidence provided by Ferrari during the Hong Kong trial played a significant role in securing his conviction.
According to his barrister, Andrew Butler KC, Ferrari engineer Martino Casolari testified that the type of brake failure described by Ebert was scientifically impossible because of the sophistication of the vehicle’s braking system.
Ebert now contends that later events cast doubt on that evidence.
Career and Earnings Severely Affected
Before the accident, Ebert held senior leadership positions at Deutsche Bank, serving as head of equities for the Asia-Pacific region and co-global head of equity sales.
His legal representatives said he had been earning between $2.5 million and $5 million annually and was expected to move into even higher-paying executive roles worth up to $11 million per year.
Following his conviction, he lost both his position and his career in international banking.
His lawyers told the court that he now operates a financial services business in the UK, earning approximately £80,000 annually. They also said his criminal conviction has restricted his ability to travel to several countries, including Hong Kong, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Ferrari Recalls Become Central to Legal Challenge
A key element of Ebert’s proposed lawsuit concerns Ferrari’s later recalls involving braking systems.
His lawyers pointed to recalls announced in the United States in 2021 and in China in 2022 affecting thousands of Ferrari vehicles, including the Ferrari 458 model he was driving at the time of the fatal crash.
The Chinese recall covered vehicles imported between 2010 and 2019 and referenced concerns involving a brake fluid reservoir cap that might not vent correctly.
According to Ebert’s legal team, his vehicle—manufactured in February 2012—fell within the range of recalled cars.
They argue the requested disclosure is intended to establish what Ferrari knew about potential brake defects before his criminal trial and whether that information should have been available during the proceedings.
Ferrari Rejects Allegations and Opposes Disclosure Request
Ferrari has challenged the application, insisting that the recalls have no connection to the 2015 accident or Ebert’s conviction.
Representing the company, barrister Tim Otty KC argued that the former banker’s request is an improper attempt to obtain evidence through the English courts rather than using established international legal procedures.
Ferrari maintains that any requests for documents should instead be pursued through legal proceedings in Hong Kong or Italy, where the relevant evidence is located.
The company also disputes Ebert’s allegations that its engineer gave false, misleading or negligent testimony during the original criminal trial.
Court Yet to Decide Next Step
The High Court has not yet ruled on whether Ferrari must disclose the requested documents.
The decision will determine whether Ebert can obtain evidence he believes is essential before launching a broader damages claim against the Italian automaker, one that could seek compensation for lost earnings, reputational damage and the long-term consequences of his conviction.
