The decision by British High Court judge Mr Justice Parks against Bernie Ecclestone in the battle for control of Formula One Holdings, one of several bodies that facilitate the sport's supremo's control of the commercial rights of Formula One, could, in the long-term, represent a sea change in how motorsport's premier series is run. How long the long-term is, however, is the great unquantifiable.
The crux of Monday's case revolved around a power struggle between Ecclestone and three banks that had inherited a stake in Formula One Holdings. Bayerische Landesbank, JP Morgan and Lehman Bros gained a 75 per cent holding in the company upon the collapse of German media giant Kirch, which had bought the stake from Ecclestone prior to its folding in 2002.
However, via a technicality, Ecclestone, with the remaining 25 per cent, kept the right to appoint directors to the board of Formula Holdings, a mechanism by which his control of the operation was maintained.
Monday's ruling, which challenged the appointments of two board members Luc Argand (Ecclestone's Geneva-based lawyer) and Emanuele Argand-Rey (Argand's wife), now hands equal rights to the banks, a move which weakens Ecclestone's control of Formula One single-handedly.
However, despite the perceived loosening of his power base within the sport, the fight for control is far from over.
After the decision Ecclestone immediately went on the defensive, claiming that the suit brought against him was merely a valuation process by the banks and that the banks' grievances are a momentary blip in an otherwise cosy relationship.
"The banks, they want to get out," he said. "These people didn't get their shares out of choice, they got them as security. They got the house and now they don't want the house.
"Now they want to cash in the house and that's what they're trying to do," he added. "We have no problems with the banks. This is just a problem of them trying to put a value on their shares."
But the banks' keenness to extract themselves from ownership of Formula One has taken a peculiar and litigious route. They have displayed little desire to sell their share back to Ecclestone and have, instead, sought, via the courts, to challenge the F1 supremo's control of the lucrative commercial rights to the sport.
Naturally, Ecclestone will have sought to bid the banks down on an asking price but so far they have not taken the easy option of a swift exit from a business that on the surface appears to be in decline and riven by territorial squabbles between its lawmakers, its promoters and its constituent teams. That is, of course, how Ecclestone likes it. In the past divide and conquer tactics have proven remarkably successful in forcing the teams to bow to his vision of the greater good.
But, despite his bid to similarly outwit the three banks, there are other forces at play which could yet see his influence in the sport wane. For the past several years, the series promoter has been waging a bitter and increasingly fractious war within the sport - against a number of manufacturer-supported teams dissatisfied with the division of the very large spoils Formula One generates. The major manufacturers - Fiat (Ferrari), Renault, Mercedes, BMW et al - have allied themselves under the umbrella of the Grand Prix World Championship (GPWC) grouping.
The organisation has consistently threatened that, unless the profits from Formula One were more equitably split (Ecclestone takes the lion's share), they will quit Formula One and set up a rival series.
That threat has waxed and waned over the past number of years, but in recent months has been forcefully voiced again and the decision in the High Court in London on Monday will increase the threat's potency.
As the banks seek to put a value on their shares, aided by the gaining of the right to appoint members to the board of Formula One Holdings, their first port of call for a potential sale and thus 75 per cent control of a major arm of Formula One's powerbase will surely be the GPWC.
Of course, in the meantime Ecclestone will appeal Monday's ruling, drawing out the battle for control of Formula One even more. But any appeal is likely to simply spell a period of protracted manoeuvring by both sides in the affair as they attempt to woo the GPWC. Ecclestone, aware thanks to Mr Justice Parks of the sticky wicket on which he is batting, is likely to make conciliatory gestures towards the GPWC. The banks, too, will court the GPWC, either to head off any split or possibly to offload their investment to a group which craves a controlling interest in Formula One.
Ultimately, Monday's ruling could have a significant impact on how the sport is run. If the GPWC does gain some control over the running of the sport, it is perhaps a dangerous route to go down, with the participants effectively controlling their own sport and dictating best practice within it.
Distasteful though it may be to many, the best solution may yet lie with Ecclestone reaching a financial accommodation with the GPWC, leaving the sport with teams satisfied with their slice of the pie but not in the position, due to the buffer of Ecclestone, to adversely affect the sport with its own internecine land wars.
Monday's judgement could have an effect on Formula One, but given the jockeying for position still to go on, its ramifications are unlikely to be really felt for some time yet.