High Court dismisses claim land bought for Wimbledon Championships expansion was subject to statutory trust

The club, which runs the Wimbledon Championships, is seeking to construct 38 new tennis courts, tennis-related infrastructure, and new buildings including an 8,000-seat stadium on the land, the site of the former Wimbledon Park golf course.

There will also be a new 9.4 hectare park open to the public, except during the Championships.

A group of local residents have formed Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) to oppose the plans.

AELTC holds both the freehold of the land, subject to a lease that was originally granted in favour of the golf club in 1986, and the leasehold interest under the 1986 lease.

Mr Justice Thompsell noted that the case before him was not about the merits or otherwise of the proposals, a matter to be considered by the planning authorities.

The judge said: “The proceedings in this court relate solely to the questions whether s.164 of the Public Health Act 1875 (“PHA 1875”) applies to the Golf Course Land and whether, as a result, the Claimant is holding this land subject to a statutory trust that has the effect of dedicating the land to public recreation.”

AELTC, as the claimant, was seeking a declaration that section 164 PHA 1875 did not apply to the golf course land when in the ownership of the London Borough of Merton or alternatively, if the council did so hold the golf course, the application of that section did not survive the sale of the freehold reversion by the transfer, notwithstanding that any requirements for advertisement in s.123 of the Local Government Act 1972 (“LGA 1972”) were not met.

Section 123 sets out a mechanism that may be followed where land is subject to a statutory trust of this nature to allow the property to be transferred free of the statutory trust, the judge noted.

SWP was named as a representative party and made the case that s.164 PHA 1875 did apply to the golf course land.

Rejecting the existence of the statutory trust, Mr Justice Thompsell concluded: “It is easy within this mass of detail to lose sight of the basic principles on which the decision should rest. At the risk of over-simplification I consider the principal issues to have been these:

1. since it was first acquired and throughout the time it was held by Wimbledon Corporation or LB Merton the Golf Course Land was used as a private golf club and not for the purposes of public recreation;
2. it was never appropriated or dedicated to the use of public recreation;
3. it was not the intended or actual effect of the 1960s legislation reorganising local government in London to change the basis on which it was held so as to cause the Golf Course Land to be held for the purpose of public recreation under PHA 1875;
4. neither did the Golf Course Land ever become “open space” or part of “open space” for the purposes of LGA 1972;
5. as the land never became held by LB Merton for the purposes of s. 164 PHA 1975, it never became the subject of a statutory trust and therefore the 1986 Lease and the 1993 transfer of the freehold were each made free of such trust;
6. even if the above proposition is wrong, it is clear that the land was never used or laid out for public recreation, so that even if LB Merton did hold the land for the purposes of s.164 a statutory trust had not yet come into being;
7. with no statutory trust in being at the time both of the acquisition of the 1986 Lease by the Golf Club and of the freehold by the Claimant, there were no public rights over the land, and therefore no overriding interests for the purposes of LRA 1925, and therefore the registration of these interests in the land in favour of the Golf Club (originally) and the Claimant provided a clean title unencumbered by any statutory trust.”

Mr Justice Thompsell said: “The overall outcome of these considerations seems to me to be a reasonable outcome. In essence I have found that land that had never been appropriated or designated for the purposes of public enjoyment could be sold without imposing onto the purchaser a public trust where one had never before existed.”

SWP said it intends to apply to the Court of Appeal "in view of the nationally-important issues of law involved in the case".

Jeremy Hudson said, "We love tennis but we continue the fight after this news because there is a strong case for protecting this precious open space from development. Wimbledon promised they would never build on this land. And Wimbledon can do better because there are existing, alternative plans which show that their scheme can be accommodated on their current site. This not only saves the environment but leaves the park free for the recreation and enjoyment of the public. These better plans would still allow AELTC to stage a qualifying tournament on site in keeping with the other Grand Slams. Therefore, we fight on.”

SWP has been separately challenging the validity of the planning permission granted to AELTC by the Greater London Authority in 2024.

The High Court rejected all three grounds of challenge in July 2025.

However, the Court of Appeal is set to hear an appeal concerning the planning permission after Lord Justice Holgate said the challenge has “real prospects of success”.