The fourth day of the High Court battle over Wimbledon Park’s future concluded with the legal team for Save Wimbledon Park continuing its case that century-old legislation permanently protects the former golf course as public open space, reports Alexia Thompson from the Royal Courts of Justice.
Caroline Shea KC, leading barrister for the campaign group, spent Wednesday arguing that the century-old site is subject to a ‘statutory trust’, making the land permanently reserved for public recreational and open use.
The All England Club (AELTC) contests this, stating that when they purchased the land from Merton council in 1993 the land was not part of a public trust, enabling the £200 million deal later approved by the Greater London Authority.
The High Court battle was initiated by the AELTC in an effort to establish that the trust does not exist, a step it took when their plans to expand the Wimbledon tennis tournament onto the land, building an 8,000-seat stadium, 38 new tennis grounds and a new public park at the same time, were challenged by the SWP.
Last summer, the High court dismissed a separate challenge brought by the SWP, stating that the GLA acted lawfully when it approved the AELTC’s planning application in 2024. That case is currently under appeal.
What did we learn today?
Shea looked specifically at the tension between the Wimbledon Corporation Act 1914 and provisions set out in the London Government Order of 1965.
The 1914 Wimbledon Corporation Act (specifically section 5), granted the then-Wimbledon Corporation, which was the local council at the time, power to purchase the Wimbledon Park Estate from private owner Lady Layne. The Act set out legal powers to acquire the land, determine the purpose for which it would be used, and grant autonomy to manage the site.
However, the London Government Order of 1965 overrode this legislation, stating any land “held for the purposes of Section 5” of the 1914 Act would immediately be placed into a public trust, rejecting private use. The main argument between the SWP and the AELTC stems from whether the former golf course was held under Section 5 in the first place.
SWP’s Shea argued that even if the land is held under Section 5, a second question remains: would the AELTC qualify as “bona fide purchasers” – buyers who acted in good faith, with no knowledge of legal restrictions, and paid a fair price? If so, they could be legally protected despite the trust.
As the 1914 Act is public law, she argued the AELTC is bound by it whether they saw it or not, adding that before making a multi-million pound purchase, a buyer should be expected to have looked over both the 1914 and 1965 legislation.
The intention argument and the conscious deliberative process
The core argument is whether the council viewed the estate as a ‘material whole’ and intended to keep the site preserved in its current state for public use. Shea says it did.
She cited 1912 newspaper articles from the British Library showing the original purchase was not a commercial land grab but intended to make the estate “an open space forever.” According to the articles, 111 residents urged the council to take steps to acquire the estate as an open space for the benefit of the inhabitants of the whole borough. “It represented the general opinion of the people of Wimbledon Park,” Shea argued.
Even though they planned to lease the golf course to pay off the debt from buying the land, this was argued to be a financial tool which would help preserve the park, not a permanent separation.
SWP also had to prove the Wimbledon Corporation had deliberately changed the land’s status through a formal process. Under the 1914 Act, the council had until 1927 to appropriate at least 20 acres of the estate for public use. SWP argue that while the Council managed the site, there is no record suggesting a real move to separate the golf course from the rest of the estate, locking in the estate with the public no matter who controls the lease.
1933 Act: the further clause
There’s one more piece of legislation. Outside of having to prove the existence of the statutory trust, the SWP also had to prove the status of the land changed after 1914. The AELTC’s legal team contend the grant of a new lease under the Local Government Act 1933 moved the land away from the protections in the 1914 Act.
Shea dismissed this argument, calling it a rewriting of history and stating: “The words simply do not reveal or bear that interpretation.”
She said the profit from the golf club was still being used to pay off the debt from the 1914 purchase debt and that the self contained system of the 1914 Act remained in place right up until the 1965 trust was triggered.
The appropriation
SWP had to further prove to Justice Thompsell whether the land was “appropriated” using law under Section 10 of the 1914 Act.
Shea argued if any of the land was appropriated for public use, the entire estate would also be bound to that same principle. Under Section 11 the land was deemed to be held for public recreation.
Through attempting to demonstrate that the council was of “mind” when petitioning for the 1914 Act to secure the maximum amount of open space, Shea then concluded the golf course was only ever intended to be a singular public mission.
The importance of Day v Shropshire
In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled on a case at the core of this dispute. In 2018, Shropshire Council sold a portion of protected land to a developer without going through the legal process of notifying others about the purchase or asking the public for their opinion.
The ruling established that councils cannot eliminate public access simply by selling the land if they do not go through the right procedure. The public will still have access to their rights if the council do not consult the public before proceeding.
AELTC argues that the precedent doesn’t apply in this case; SWP argues that the principle is identical in the case of Wimbledon Park.
What can we expect to see next, and why does all of this matter?
The court proceedings will conclude on 24 January, but Justice Thompsell will not give a verdict until the spring.
If SWP are able to secure the park, then the AELTC will have a very hard time getting planning permission to continue with the project. If the AELTC win, they still face two other legal challenges, and a determined team of local residents.
For locals, the push to develop the park strips away a public green space in a move they argue was kept from the eyes of the public. For the All England Club, it represents an opportunity to restructure the spine of British tennis, placing them on the map for mass events.
With the final judgement expected in a few months, Justice Thompsell will decide just whose arguments have convinced him the most.
