A law dating back 150 years could potentially limit the use of land designated for the expansion of the Wimbledon tennis venue, as indicated during proceedings at the High Court.
The All England Club is currently embroiled in a legal dispute with the advocacy group Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) regarding a proposal to nearly triple the size of its facility on the site of the former Wimbledon Park Golf Club.
These plans encompass the construction of 38 new tennis courts and an 8,000-seat stadium, which would enable the club to host Wimbledon qualifiers on site.
The SWP contends that the land is governed by a statutory trust established under the Public Health Act of 1875, which stipulates that it should solely be utilized as public parks or walkways.
The group asserts that this trust remained intact when the land was transferred in the 1960s and again upon the All England Club’s acquisition of the freehold in 1993.
Attorneys representing the All England Club challenge this claim, maintaining that the land was never bound by such a trust and that, even if it were, it would have ceased to exist following the 1993 transaction.
Nonetheless, the club acknowledges that if the trust is upheld, it would hinder their development initiatives.
In his written arguments, Jonathan Karas KC, counsel for the All England Club, stated that it would be “unusual” for the land to be determined as being held under a statutory trust and that such a conclusion would represent “a significant alteration in the status of the land.”
He explained, “The golf course has consistently been treated as privately owned property leased to a private organization. It was sold to the All England Club under this premise.”
“It has never been designed as a public park, nor has the public been given access for recreational purposes.”
Wimbledon Park, which is publicly accessible and placed under a statutory trust, was established in 1927 by the Wimbledon Corporation.
Karas maintained that the golf course remained under lease to the golf club throughout this timeframe and thus was not included in the public trust.
He argued that this perspective also applied when the land was transferred to the London Borough of Merton in the 1960s and when the All England Club purchased the freehold for approximately £5 million in 1993.
Records from that era “consistently indicated that the London Borough of Merton had the right to manage the land as it deemed appropriate,” and that the golf course “was not encumbered by a statutory trust,” as noted by Karas.
In previous court sessions, Sasha White KC, representing the SWP, contended that the trust implied that plans for the land should not “restrict its use in a way that detracts from the public’s enjoyment of the openness and extent of the golf course.”
In written arguments for Friday’s session, Caroline Shea KC, also representing SWP, asserted that the golf course “continues to serve as an open area” and criticized the club’s claims as “faulty.”
She commented, “The evidence does not support the notion of unequal treatment between the two sections of the park that would be necessary to imply that the golf course land was not designated as public land, while the park was.”
“At best, it merely demonstrates that various recreational activities were conducted by distinct groups across different areas of the park.”
The Greater London Authority greenlighted the expansion plans in 2024, but they have continued to face intense opposition from activists.
This marks the second legal challenge mounted by SWP, following their unsuccessful High Court case against the GLA’s approval of planning permission in July of the previous year.
The hearing is scheduled to conclude on January 23.
