The Spaniard was demoted from fourth to 12th in Melbourne after being penalised five seconds for causing a collision with Aston Martin's Fernando Alonso following a chaotic penultimate-lap standing restart.

Ferrari's right of review request was heard in a virtual hearing on Tuesday morning, in which the team put forward telemetry from Sainz's car, a witness statement from Sainz as well as post-race comments by Alonso and other drivers.

But the petition was dismissed, with the stewards saying: "There is no significant and relevant new element which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned."

• Ferrari: Red Bull pace shows cost-cap penalty was 'very light'
• How F1's spring break could impact the world championship
• F1 driver ratings: Who has impressed early in 2023?
• Get Sky Sports | Stream the biggest moments on NOW

Following the decision, Ferrari released a statement which read: "We are naturally disappointed and felt that we had provided sufficient, significant new elements for the FIA to re-examine the decision especially in the context of the particular conditions and multiple incidents that occurred during the final restart.

"We are however respectful of the process and of the FIA decision. We are now looking forward to entering broader discussions with the FIA, F1 and all the teams, with the aim of further improving the policing of our sport, in order to ensure the highest level of fairness and consistency that our sport deserves."

After the contact between Sainz and Alonso, Alpine team-mates Pierre Gasly and Esteban Ocon were involved in a heavy collision, while Williams' Logan Sargeant ran into the back of Nyck de Vries' AlphaTauri.

Sainz and Alonso, who were fourth and third respectively at the restart, sustained minimal damage and were able to continue at the back of the field, while the other four cars involved in incidents retired.

The FIA decided the remaining 12 cars would be restored to the order from the standing restart for a processional final lap behind the safety car, but also that Sainz would serve a five-second penalty, leaving him no opportunity to create a gap to the cars behind him, and ultimately condemning him to last of those who finished.

Meanwhile, Gasly and Ocon were cleared of wrongdoing after visiting the stewards after the race, while the collision between Sargeant and De Vries was not investigated.

Sainz was left devastated by the decision, first describing it over team radio as the "most unfair penalty" he had seen in his life, and later as "the biggest disgrace" in the sport for many years.

Team principal Fred Vasseur argued the stewards at Albert Park had not acted consistently with the three Turn One incidents on the final grid restart.

"The only thing is that about Gasly-Ocon, also Sargeant-De Vries turn one, and the reaction of the stewards was not the same," Vasseur said.

"What we can expect is to at least have an open discussion with them.

"Also for the good of the sport, to avoid to have this kind of decision when you have three cases at the same corner and not the same decision."

In full: Stewards' reasoning for dismissing Ferrari's petition

"Our decision that [Sainz] was in breach of Appendix L, Chapter IV, Article 2 d) of the FIA International Sporting Code for causing the collision with [Alonso] was made in-race (Document no. 46). We decided that [Sainz] was wholly to blame for the collision.

"We considered the fact that this collision took place at the first corner on the first lap of the restart, when, by convention, the Stewards would typically take a more lenient view of incidents. However, we decided that notwithstanding that it was the equivalent of a first lap incident, we considered that there was sufficient gap for SAI to take steps to avoid the collision and failed to do so. We therefore imposed a 5 second time penalty.

"The Petition contends that there are new significant and relevant elements, which were unavailable at the time of our decision being made (and presumably, had we had the benefit of these elements, we would not have made our decision).

"Three elements were relied upon:
a) the telemetry data of [Sainz's] car after the second restart (annexure 4).
b) [Sainz's] witness statement (annexure 5); and
c) other driver's witness statements (annexures 6 & 7), which amount to records of post-race interviews given by [Alonso] (annexure 6) as well as other drivers (annexure 7).

"The Competitor says that there is precedent for these matters being considered new significant and relevant elements. It points to the Stewards' Decision dealing with the petition by Sahara Force India F1 Team seeking a right of review as a precedent for the proposition that the verbal testimony of a driver and relevant telemetry can amount to a significant and relevant new element.

"The factual circumstances of the Stewards' Decision under review in that matter are quite different to those here in this matter.

"The Sahara Force India F1 team matter involved a post-race hearing into an incident (in other words, it was not clear to the Stewards who was at fault for the collision in question). The Competitor's driver was not available to attend the hearing because he had been taken to hospital following the incident. The hearing proceeded without the ability for the Competitor to speak with its driver to obtain a version. That happened after the hearing and the driver's version put a different light on the facts that had been put to the Stewards.

"The distinguishing feature here is that our decision was made in-race. We deemed it unnecessary for us to hear from [Sainz] or hear from any other driver to decide that he was wholly to blame for the collision. A decision that we, and other Stewards panels, routinely take and are encouraged to take, when the cause of the collision is clear and there is a need for time penalties to be issued as quickly as possible.

"Further and in any event, we also find as follows:

"1. Telemetry: The telemetry data (annexure 4) of itself is not a significant and relevant new element required to decide who was at fault for the collision. The Stewards have access to a considerable amount of telemetry data. We were also in a position to access such data. The telemetry data presented in the Petition is at best ambiguous and in our view did not exculpate [Sainz] but in fact corroborated our decision that he was wholly to blame for the collision. He says he braked harder but could not stop the car because of cold tyres. He states further that a slow formation lap contributed to the cold tyres.

"There are two short points. First, even if that is true, the presentation of telemetry showing his braking point is not a significant new element for the purposes of Art.14.

"Second, the conditions of the track and the tyres was something that every competitor needed to take into account and adapt to. In trying to brake late while racing [Gasly], he adopted the risk that he, as a driver, would lose control of his car. In this case, that risk materialised, with the consequence of a collision that ensued, for which a penalty follows.

"2. [Sainz's] written witness statement (the document itself) is not a new significant and relevant element required to decide who was at fault for the collision. First, had we thought that this required a statement from SAI for us to analyse the event, we would have summoned him after the race. We did not consider it necessary then to hear from him to decide that fact.

"His witness statement, in essence, states how poor the grip was (we have dealt with why that is not a sufficient excuse above) and how the sun was in his eyes. But logic would dictate that the position of the sun would have equally impacted other drivers too. It is not a justifiable reason to avoid a penalty for a collision. The witness statement is therefore not a new element either.

"3. The other drivers' statements are not new significant and relevant elements required to decide about the incident (none of the statements contained new significant and relevant versions about the collision). These statements were all records of post-race statements given by the drivers to the media. These were presented to corroborate their position that the grip level was low and that the tyres were cold.

"Again, while these statements were made subsequent to our decision, and therefore could not have been present when we made the decision, nothing stated in those comments were significant or indeed relevant to our considerations. This does not satisfy the requirements of Art 14 either.

"We accordingly dismissed the Petition."

The Formula 1 season resumes with the Azerbaijan Grand Prix from April 28-30, with the first Sprint weekend of 2023 shown in full live on Sky Sports F1. Watch Saturday's Sprint at 2:30pm and Sunday's race at 12pm. Get Sky Sports