When the High Court handed down its judgment in All England Lawn Tennis Ground Ltd v Save Wimbledon Park Ltd ([2026] EWHC 628 (Ch)) in March of this year, many commentators assumed the most significant legal hurdle to the All England Lawn Tennis Club's ("AELTC") ambitious £200m expansion had been cleared. As Wimbledon fortnight has drawn to a close, however, the picture looks considerably more complicated, with active proceedings in the Court of Appeal, a pending application to appeal the trust judgment itself, and a notable legislative intervention by Parliament all keeping this saga very much alive.

The March 2026 Judgment: A Recap

Mr Justice Thompsell's 122-page judgment, delivered on 19 March 2026, found comprehensively in favour of the AELTC. The central question was whether the former Wimbledon Park Golf Club land was subject to a statutory trust for public recreation under section 164 of the Public Health Act 1875. If such a trust existed, it would have prevented the Club's plans to build a new 8,000-seat stadium and 38 additional grass courts on the site.

The Court held that the land had never been used or laid out for public recreation, having historically been leased and operated as a private golf course. Even if a trust had arisen during the local government reorganisation of the 1960s, no public recreation rights had ever crystallised into overriding interests capable of binding the AELTC as the registered freehold owner. 

What Has Happened Since?

Save Wimbledon Park applies to appeal the trust judgment

Save Wimbledon Park Ltd ("SWP") has given formal notice of its intention to apply to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal the trust judgment. A decision on that application is expected imminently. SWP has emphasised the wider national implications it sees in the ruling, arguing that the decision could undermine statutory protections for public open space across the country. The application must be self-funded by SWP, which previously raised over £200,000 through crowdfunding to meet its legal costs in the related planning judicial review.

A parallel Court of Appeal challenge to the GLA's planning permission

The trust case is not the only active front in this litigation. Separately, SWP had brought a judicial review challenging the Greater London Authority's ("GLA") decision to grant planning permission for the expansion. That challenge was dismissed by Mr Justice Saini in July 2025, but in November 2025, Lord Justice Holgate granted SWP permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, finding that the grounds had "a real prospect of success" and that "the case law on scheme benefits, deliverability, material considerations and irrationality merits review by the Court of Appeal." That appeal hearing is expected to take place later in 2026.

Parliament intervenes: Amendment 248 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026

Perhaps the most striking post-judgment development has been the legislative response. The day after the trust judgment was handed down, the House of Lords passed Amendment 248 to what was then the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. The amendment creates a mechanism allowing the Secretary of State to release land from statutory public recreation trusts in cases where local authorities failed to follow the required consultation procedures at the time of sale, a provision widely seen as tailored to the Wimbledon Park facts, though not limited to them.

Broader Significance

This litigation continues to raise important questions that extend well beyond the Wimbledon Park site. The March 2026 trust judgment reinforces the principle that statutory trusts for public recreation require clear evidence of appropriation and public use, and will not easily be implied over land with a history of private use. 

The legislative intervention adds a further dimension: if the Secretary of State's new discharge power is available in some form, practitioners advising on sites potentially subject to public recreation trusts will need to consider whether an application under the new regime may be an appropriate route alongside, or instead of, litigation.

Edwin Coe's Property Disputes team continue to monitor all strands of this case closely and are available to advise clients on development issues, restrictive covenants, statutory trusts, and other property disputes. If you would like to discuss the implications of these developments in more detail, please contact a member of our team.