“It’s David versus Goliath.” That’s how local campaigner Simon Wright described it — and today, the battle finally reached the High Court.
After years of protests, petitions, planning rows, and public meetings, the Save Wimbledon Park campaign began its legal challenge against the All England Lawn Tennis Club’s (AELTC) ambitious £200 million expansion plan.
The two-day judicial review — which opened Tuesday at the Royal Courts of Justice — is being heard at the height of Wimbledon fortnight. And just as players battled for quarter-final spots inside Centre Court, outside Court 68 of the High Court, residents rallied with drums, signs, and chants to defend the green space they believe should never have been touched.
What’s this case really about?
At the heart of the legal challenge is land — and the question of who it belongs to, and who gets to shape its future.
The AELTC wants to nearly triple its grounds by building 38 new courts and an 8,000-seat stadium on the site of the former Wimbledon Park Golf Club, which it purchased in 2018. The club says this is essential for Wimbledon’s long-term success, allowing qualifying matches to move on-site and enhancing fan experience.
But campaigners argue the site — part of a Grade II*-listed historic landscape designed by Capability Brown — is protected in law. They say it was sold in 1993 under legal covenants that prohibit development, and may also be subject to a statutory public trust requiring it to remain open space for recreation.
“This is not just about tennis,” said local Susan Cusack. “It’s about integrity, the environment, and the right of a community to protect the green space it was promised.”
Triple Jeopardy: The Three-Pronged Legal Challenge
Save Wimbledon Park’s legal strategy rests on what it calls “Triple Jeopardy” — three separate but interconnected legal threats to the AELTC’s expansion plans:
- Judicial Review – Campaigners argue that the Greater London Authority acted unlawfully in approving the plans. They say the GLA failed to consider existing legal restrictions and wrongly treated the AELTC’s promises to reverse earlier environmental harm as a planning benefit. They also argue the private tennis complex doesn’t qualify as an “alternative recreational provision” under national planning rules.
- Statutory Public Recreation Trust – A second case, due in January 2026, will determine whether the land must legally remain open for public recreation. SWP says Merton Council never lawfully removed the trust when it sold the land, and cites a 2023 Supreme Court ruling (Day v Shropshire) in support. AELTC has agreed to help fund this case to secure a definitive legal ruling.
- Restrictive Covenants – The 1993 sale agreement includes covenants that SWP says prohibit development and require the openness of the site to be preserved. AELTC claims these covenants are outdated, but campaigners argue they remain enforceable by Merton Council or local residents.
If SWP succeeds on any one of these three fronts, the entire expansion plan could be sent back to the drawing board.
A case years in the making
The seeds of the dispute were planted long before the courts got involved.
- In 2018, AELTC bought the golf course site for £65 million.
- In 2021, it submitted its expansion plans to Merton and Wandsworth councils.
- In 2023, Wandsworth rejected the proposal; Merton approved it.
- In 2024, the Greater London Authority gave it final sign-off — despite thousands of objections and the unresolved legal questions.
Campaigners have raised over £200,000 to mount their legal case, supported by over 900 donors and a petition with more than 21,000 signatures. As has been the case in protests outside Merton Council, Wandsworth Council, and the Wimbledon Tournament itself, the protestors have provided amusing and unambiguous signs:
“Green Not Greed”
“Industrial Tennis Complex? No Thanks.”
“1993 Tennis Club Covenant: Never To Develop This Land”
Inside the courtroom: “You could not have a more protected piece of land”
Sasha White KC, representing Save Wimbledon Park, told the judge that the land is subject to “some of the most restricted planning restraints possible” — including Metropolitan Open Land status, tree preservation orders, conservation area protections, and legal covenants.
He argued that the Greater London Authority failed to properly consider the implications of those restrictions before granting permission, and that this omission made the decision unlawful.
In particular, he focused on a 1993 agreement when the AELTC purchased the freehold of the land from Merton Council. That agreement included a covenant restricting development, which campaigners say still applies — though AELTC disputes this.
A separate case in January will determine whether the land is subject to a statutory public trust.
Outside court: chants, banners, and strawberries
As lawyers argued inside, the atmosphere outside was loud, colourful, and determined.
Campaigners turned up early with placards and percussion. One protester came dressed as a strawberry — holding a sign that read “BERRY ANGRY.” Another referenced John McEnroe’s famous outburst: “You CANNOT Be Serious.”
Simon Wright from SWP said more than 150 people joined the demonstration – a figure later inflated in the press to 250 (“who I am to argue?”, he told campaigners in an update). “It shows the strength of feeling. People care deeply about this land. They feel betrayed.”
What AELTC and the GLA say
The All England Club insists its plans are legal, proportionate, and environmentally responsible. It has promised to deliver 27 acres of new public parkland, restore Wimbledon Lake, and plant 1,500 trees to offset the loss of 300 mature ones.
It also argues that modernising facilities is essential to keep Wimbledon competitive with other Grand Slam tournaments, all of which now host their qualifiers on-site.
A spokesperson said:
“This is one of the greatest sporting transformations for London since 2012. Our plans offer year-round benefits for the community, and we’re proud of the consultation and care we’ve taken.”
GLA lawyers told the court that their decision to approve the scheme was based on a “properly exercised planning judgment” and that the legal restrictions cited by campaigners are “non-planning matters.”
Who’s on each side?
- Supporting the expansion:
- AELTC
- Mayor of London’s office (GLA)
- High-profile players like Novak Djokovic and Carlos Alcaraz
- Opposing the expansion:
- Save Wimbledon Park campaign
- Putney and Wimbledon MPs
- Wandsworth councillors
- Comedian Andy Hamilton: “A very rich private tennis club looking to get even richer.”
Why this matters — even beyond Wimbledon
Campaigners argue this case could set a precedent for other green spaces in London. If a powerful institution can build on protected Metropolitan Open Land by promising public benefits and calling it “recreational,” then other councils could follow suit.
Gary Forde, who lives on Wimbledon Park Road, put it bluntly:
“This isn’t just about us. If they can get away with it here, where won’t they get away with it?”
What happens next?
- The High Court hearing concludes on Wednesday.
- A written judgment is expected later this summer or early autumn.
- A second case on the statutory trust issue is due in January 2026.
- Meanwhile, campaigners say they’ll continue raising awareness and pressure.
As one banner read:
“Once built, it’s gone forever.”
an excellent, detailed and balanced piece that explains the background on the issues with great clarity. Congratulations on comprehensive and detailed reporting on an important issue.