The world’s oldest and most prestigious tennis tournament, Wimbledon, is finally set to get much bigger. On Thursday the organizers of All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club have received a major boost after London’s High Court allowed plans to expand the venue, which includes adding 39 new courts and nearly tripling its size under a project worth 200 million-pound (INR 2000 Crore). The decision comes after a group of campaigners tried to stop the project but were unsuccessful, clearing the way for this long-debated expansion to move forward.
The AELTC’s plans to redevelop a former golf course which it owns are supported by several leading players and some local residents. But campaign group Save Wimbledon Park, which took legal action to challenge planning permission, argued the land is subject to a statutory trust, meaning it must be kept for public recreation.
Centre Court is glistening for the Gentlemen’s Singles Final ☀️#Wimbledon pic.twitter.com/ZOSawkgYYf
— Wimbledon (@Wimbledon) July 13, 2025
The AELTC sought a ruling from the High Court that the land is not subject to such a trust, with its lawyers saying it has never been used for public recreation. After a hearing in January, Judge Nicholas Thompsell ruled in the AELTC’s favour, saying in a written ruling that the land was never dedicated to the use of public recreation and so “could be sold without imposing onto the purchaser a public trust where one had never before existed”.
AELTC chair Deborah Jevans welcomed the ruling, which she said “represents a significant milestone for our plans”. Save Wimbledon Park said it intended to seek permission to appeal. The expansion plans were at the centre of a separate case last summer, when Save Wimbledon Park challenged planning permission approved by the Greater London Authority in 2024.
Also Read: ‘Indian Premier League’ Name Illegal? Kerala High Court Dismisses Bizarre PIL, Big Relief For BCCI
Save Wimbledon Park argued in that case that the GLA failed to properly take account of restrictions on redeveloping the land. Their challenge was rejected, but the group has since been granted permission to appeal against that ruling.
