BBC LondonThe High Court has been informed that an ordinance established a century and a half ago could constrain the utilization of property designated for expanding the Wimbledon tennis complex.
The All England Club is currently embroiled in a legal dispute with the activist organization Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) regarding its proposals to nearly enlarge its estate threefold on the grounds previously occupied by the Wimbledon Park Golf Club.
These propositions encompass the construction of 38 additional tennis courts and a grandstand capable of seating 8,000 spectators, enabling the club to host Wimbledon qualifying matches directly at the venue.
SWP contends that the property falls under a legal trust established by the Public Health Act of 1875, implying its use is solely dedicated to “public promenades or recreational areas.”
@Allies&Morrison/AELTCThe organization asserts that this trust persisted through successive ownership changes, specifically when the land was transferred in the 1960s and subsequently when the All England Club acquired the freehold ownership in 1993.
Legal counsel representing the All England Club contests this assertion, maintaining that the land was never bound by such a trust, or alternatively, if it ever was, that trust ceased to exist following the 1993 acquisition.
Nonetheless, the club concedes that the existence of such a trust would impede its proposed development initiatives.
In his filed legal documents, Jonathan Karas KC, acting on behalf of the All England Club, stated that it would be “irregular” if the parcel of land were determined to be subject to a statutory trust, and such a determination would signify “a significant alteration in the land’s legal standing.”
He declared: “The property formerly used as a golf course has consistently been handled in practice as private property rented to an exclusive club. Its sale to [the All England Club] proceeded under this assumption.”
“It has never been configured as a public park, nor have members of the public ever been granted access for general recreational activities.”
The public area known as Wimbledon Park, which was indeed brought under a statutory trust, came into existence in 1927 through the efforts of the Wimbledon Corporation.
Karas contended that the golf course continued to be rented by the golf club during this entire timeframe, and consequently, it was not included within the scope of the public trust.
He stated that this condition persisted when the property was transferred to the London Borough of Merton during the 1960s, and similarly when the All England Club acquired its complete freehold interest for approximately £5 million in 1993.
Contemporaneous records “consistently affirmed that the London Borough of Merton held the liberty to alienate [the land] at its discretion,” and furthermore, that the golf course “was not encumbered by a statutory trust,” as per Karas’s account.
PADuring preceding legal actions, Sasha White KC, acting for SWP, asserted that the trust implied any proposals for the land must not “limit its utilization in a manner that would diminish the public’s perception of the golf course property’s expanse or unobstructed nature.”
In documentation presented for Friday’s court session, Caroline Shea KC, likewise advocating for SWP, declared that the golf course “maintains its status as an unobstructed area” and characterized the club’s stance as “defective.”
She stated: “The available facts do not substantiate the kind of distinct handling between the two components of the park that would be necessary to suggest that the golf course section was not designated [as public property] while the park portion was.
“At most, the evidence merely indicates that diverse leisure pursuits were pursued by various collectives across distinct sectors of the park.”
The initiatives for enlargement received endorsement from the Greater London Authority in 2024, yet they have encountered continuous examination from advocacy groups.
This marks the second judicial challenge initiated by SWP, following the group’s defeat in a High Court lawsuit contesting the GLA’s choice to issue development consent in July of the previous year.
The court proceedings are scheduled to conclude on January 23rd.
