High Court to hear dispute over whether land earmarked for Wimbledon expansion is protected by statutory trust

The hearing, which begins on Friday (16 January), is the latest stage in the ongoing legal battle over the club’s expansion plans.

These particular proceedings concern whether the local government reorganisation which established the London local authorities in the 1960s imposed a s.164 statutory trust on land which is part of the planned development, according to the AELTC.

The Mayor of London approved AELTC’s planning application in 2024, paving the way for the construction of 38 new tennis courts, tennis-related infrastructure, and new buildings, including an 8,000-seat stadium.

As part of its development efforts, AELTC has applied to the High Court for a ruling on whether or not there is a public recreation statutory trust.

That application is being opposed by local campaign group Save Wimbledon Park (SWP), which is acting as the representative defendant in the proceedings.

The club said there are two core legal issues for the court to determine are:

1. Did a 1964 Order (the legislation facilitating the local government reorganisation) apply a s.164 statutory trust to the Golf Course Land because, on 31 March 1965 (the day before that legislation took effect), the land was “held for the purposes of” s.5 of the Wimbledon Corporation Act 1914 (WCA)? The WCA was the Act of Parliament giving the local authority the power to originally buy the land in 1915; and
2. If the 1964 Order did apply a s.164 statutory trust to the Golf Course Land, does that trust bind the AELTC as the purchaser of the Golf Course Land in 1993; because a specific statutory advertisement process was not followed at that time? In other words, does the trust survive a sale by the London Borough of Merton to the AELTC in the 1990s?

Summarising its position, the AELTC said on issue one that the land is not subject to a s.164 statutory trust because it was let at a rent to a private members’ golf club (the Wimbledon Park Golf Club) outside the powers of the WCA 1914. As a result, no statutory trust was ever created in relation to the golf course land.

On issue two, the club argues that the statutory trust did not survive when Merton sold the freehold of the golf course land to the AELTC in 1993 because there was no notice of a s.164 statutory trust on the registered title.

SWP meanwhile is set to argue in the High Court that the development site remains subject to a public recreation trust, notwithstanding the fact that the land had previously been leased to a private golf club.

SWP also argues that Merton Council sold the freehold of the golf course land to AELTC in 1993 without complying with the advertisement and consultation requirements under the Local Government Act 1972.

AELTC contends that those requirements did not apply because the land was not in public use at the time of disposal.

However, SWP disputes that interpretation, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Day v Shropshire Council (2023) in support of its case.

In Day, the Supreme Court clarified that land sold in breach of the statutory advertisement and consultation requirements would nonetheless remain subject to the public’s statutory recreation rights. In other words, public rights are not lost through procedural failures by a local authority.

The High Court proceedings are scheduled to last up to six days.

SWP has also 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”.

The AELTC has been approached for comment.

Adam Carey