The long-anticipated hearing of SWP's Judicial Review & our success in defending costs protection for the legal battle
- Save Wimbledon Park
- Jul 10
- 5 min read
Supporters’ Bulletin no. (8), 10 July 2025 - The long-anticipated hearing of SWP's Judicial Review...
The long-anticipated hearing of SWP’s Judicial Review, challenging the GLA’s decision last September to grant planning permission for the AELTC development, took place in the High Court in London on 8 and 9 July. About 150 campaigners mounted a noisy but good-humoured demonstration outside the Royal Courts of Justice on the first day, which duly attracted considerable media attention. The start of the hearing was delayed by over an hour while overspill accommodation was found for the dozens of supporters wishing to follow the proceedings in person.
The hearing was before Mr Justice Saini. SWP was very capably represented by Sasha White KC, assisted by Luke Wilcox. Both the GLA and the AELTC were also represented. Supporters will recall that SWP were challenging the GLA’s decision on three grounds. Firstly, that the GLA failed properly to take into account the implications of the statutory public recreation trust and the restrictive covenants, both of which prevent the development. Secondly, the GLA failed to recognise that golf course use was (in planning terms) “deliberate damage” of a heritage asset, so that rectification of such damage should not count as a benefit. Lastly, they failed to appreciate that the creation of a private entertainment complex (for just 3 weeks a year) would not provide “alternative sports and recreation” for the public, as required by planning policy.
The hearing lasted a day and a half, at the end of which the Judge stated that he wished to reserve judgment. His decision is expected by the end of July and will be circulated to supporters as soon as it is publicly available. At the conclusion of the hearing the Judge also considered a very late application by the GLA to lift the £10,000 “Aarhus” cap on SWP’s liability for adverse costs. The GLA’s grounds for applying were the “significant change in circumstances” of SWP resulting from our very successful crowdfunding campaign. The application was refused and the GLA were ordered to pay SWP’s costs of dealing with it. In dismissing the application, the Judge said that it would be wrong in principle for a Claimant to be faced with the risk that the costs cap could be raised if it was successful it its fundraising. Further details of this unusual application are set out in the attached press release.
We are extremely grateful to our barristers, and to our Solicitors Russell-Cooke, for the expert way in which they have conducted SWP’s case. We are grateful too to the many hundreds of people who have contributed so generously to our funding of this litigation, and to all those who accompanied us to the High Court this week.
Looking ahead, if SWP succeed on any or all of those three grounds, the planning permission will be quashed. The AELTC’s planning application will then revert to the GLA for reconsideration in the light of the Court’s decision. We would expect in those circumstances that permission would be refused and the AELTC will have to think again.
Whichever party loses the JR would be entitled to seek permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point or points of law. An application for leave to appeal would have to be made within 21 days of the judgment. Obviously, the Judge’s decision will require very careful review by all parties.
We still hope that, particularly if the AELTC to lose on the JR, rather than battling further through the law courts, they could be persuaded to talk to us, with a view to achieving a resolution of this four-year-old dispute.
Meanwhile, the separate statutory trust proceedings are progressing towards a hearing next January. Furthermore, whatever the outcome of these two court cases, the restrictive covenants remain firmly in place. Merton remain totally silent on the question of whether they intend to enforce the covenants, or not.
(Bulletin ends)
SWP Press Release: success in defending costs protection for its legal battle:
In February 2025 the High Court decided that SWP’s case for judicial review was sufficiently strong to be allowed to go ahead. The Court also imposed a cap on the legal costs SWP would have to pay to the Mayor of London if its public interest challenge failed. The purpose of costs protection in this sort of claim is to enable community and other groups to take on environmental litigation against state and other substantial forces, even where there is a huge disparity of resources.
In February 2025, Mrs Justice Lang ordered that
If SWP lose it must pay no more than £10,000 towards the costs of the Mayor, AELTC, Merton and Wandsworth together (i.e. a “cap” of £10,000 in aggregate); and
If SWP win in the JR, the Mayor and AELTC must each pay £35,000 towards SWP’s costs, (i.e. up to £70,000 in aggregate).
SWP still had to raise sufficient funds to pay its own legal costs and meet the capped adverse costs liability if it lost. SWP was hopeful but never certain that it could raise enough. After considerable effort by many volunteers and after generating much publicity and holding numerous community meetings, SWP has secured over 1200 donations totalling around £200,000 which was enough to continue the litigation in a proper and responsible way. Details of the progress of SWP’s fundraising has been in the public domain from an early stage.
On 23 June and without prior notice to SWP, the Mayor applied direct to court to lift the cap of £10,000 on the grounds that there had been a “significant change in circumstances” of SWP, its financial resources having “radically increased” because of its fundraising activity. The Mayor’s application was heard at the conclusion of the full hearing of the JR claim taking place on the 8 and 9 July. The Mayor’s late application has taken up precious court time. SWP has had to incur extra legal costs in contesting it, which the court has ordered the Mayor to reimburse.
In dismissing the application, Mr Justice Saini held that it would be wrong in principle for the Claimant to be faced with the risk that the costs cap would be retrospectively raised if it was successful in its campaigning.
The Mayor’s application was an attempt to “move the goalposts” to divert money away from the purpose for which it was donated and score a tactical victory in the litigation. SWP has always made it clear that it intended to attempt to raise sufficient funds for skilled legal representation so that there would be some equality of arms between the parties. It is an indicator of the strong feelings about the issues of principle that donors have come forward to allow SWP to meet its target.
The Mayor’s application should never have been made and the court’s decision to reject it with an order for costs against the Mayor is very much to be welcomed and a relief for access to justice more generally for claims that may wish to be brought in future. It was an unnecessary distraction for SWP’s legal team and has increased the time pressure in relation to the really important issues at stake in the JR.
The Judge indicated that he expects to hand down his judgment on the judicial review hearing itself before the end of July.
Christopher Coombe, director of SWP, said:
“We’ve had to work tirelessly to raise the funds needed to defend ourselves, so it was a real blow when the Mayor of London’s team tried to lift the £10,000 cost cap by claiming there had been a “significant change in circumstances” because our financial resources had “radically increased”. That increase came solely from relentless grassroots fundraising, not because we suddenly became wealthy.
“We are disappointed that the application was made, and we’re relieved and proud that this tactic has failed.”
(Press release ends)