Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Wimbledon


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 26333
Date:
RE: Wimbledon


Coup Droit wrote:

I see (on the Daily Mail) that the AELTC is having issues with its development plans of the golf course.

There's a restrictive covenant on the land, seemingly, which prevents building.

The guy in charge seems to have no understanding about the difference of planning law, public benefit, etc. etc. (i.e. the planning permission in public law) and private land law (the covenant) which is completely different.

Looks like it'll drag on even further.

(It was supposed to be done and dusted by now. Now we're back to 2028 - 2030, minimum)

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10235983/Locals-legal-row-Wimbledon-plans-build-39-new-courts-new-stadium.html


†youd think they would have checked that all out before they bought the land?! Crazy



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 26333
Date:

And wouldnt the Golf Club have been required to disclose anything like that otherwise it could be a fraudulent transaction, if the question was asked by the buyer? And the members got £80k each so would they be liable for repaying that if it got legal?

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Online
Posts: 46745
Date:

JonH comes home wrote:

And wouldnt the Golf Club have been required to disclose anything like that otherwise it could be a fraudulent transaction, if the question was asked by the buyer? And the members got £80k each so would they be liable for repaying that if it got legal?


†Firstly, covenants are charges on the land registry, they're open and public knowledge, they come up when the solicitor does a search, they don't need disclosure, so the only issue is whether your solicitor is incompetent or not, not the seller's disclosure.†

But from what I read, the AELTC owned the land already, it was they who agreed to putting the covenant in. What they've bought is basically the golf club's rights to use the land. So they most certainly knew about it.

†"At the centre of the debate is a covenant placed on the land when it was sold to the AELTC for £5.2 million in 1993."



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 26333
Date:

Coup Droit wrote:
JonH comes home wrote:

And wouldnt the Golf Club have been required to disclose anything like that otherwise it could be a fraudulent transaction, if the question was asked by the buyer? And the members got £80k each so would they be liable for repaying that if it got legal?


†Firstly, covenants are charges on the land registry, they're open and public knowledge, they come up when the solicitor does a search, they don't need disclosure, so the only issue is whether your solicitor is incompetent or not, not the seller's disclosure.†

But from what I read, the AELTC owned the land already, it was they who agreed to putting the covenant in. What they've bought is basically the golf club's rights to use the land. So they most certainly knew about it.

†"At the centre of the debate is a covenant placed on the land when it was sold to the AELTC for £5.2 million in 1993."


†SOunds like incompetence at the AELTC end then...



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Online
Posts: 46745
Date:

Well, it wasn't incompetent at the time. It was probably necessary in order to get the purchase.

And now it depends how many people the covenant is with. It will be the neighbouring land.

If only a few, it's easier to buy out the landowners. If a lot, there's more problem.

However, under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925, "the Lands Chamber has the legal discretion to discharge or modify most restrictive covenants affecting land but not all. The tribunal will seek to determine if:

The restriction ought to be deemed to be obsolete or;
The continued existence thereof would impede the user of the land for public or private purposes, or, as the case may be, would unless modified so impede such user, and;
The beneficiary consents to the discharge or change, and;
If there will be damage to the beneficiary due to the loss or change of the covenant."

If it goes there, I presume the AELTC will be arguing the second heading. The whole thing is discretionary, turns on public benefit, and also depends whether money is a satisfactory compensation (which it probably would be here). I'm not sure how often that succeeds but the Supreme Court said last year that public benefit has to be interpreted narrowly in s.84 cases.



-- Edited by Coup Droit on Wednesday 24th of November 2021 09:58:25 AM

__________________


ATP qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 2841
Date:

My very vague knowledge of Covenants is that they reside with the person holding them, no one else so if it's Wimbledon that have the covenant then there isn't an issue as it's only them that can enforce it. As CD says though if there are a number of parties holding covenants over the land then good luck with that. We have a couple of areas round my way where there is a covenant in place regarding the sale of alcohol. 1 is held by the Quakers so no chance of it changing, the other is with a family that appear to have completely died out so there is no one left to enforce it and all the restaurants just get indemnity insurance in case an unknown relie pops up.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Online
Posts: 46745
Date:

Well, the covenant is with the land.
And the people holding them (effectively) are the owners of the neighboring land. i.e. the covenant is on the deeds of the golf club land but it's a promise TO the other landowners around that they won't build.
So Wimbledon have the burden not to build and the neighbours have the benefit of not being built around.
You need a benefit and a burden.
Wimbledon are only holding the burden, that's what's on their deeds, they can't choose, as the benefit - to No. 10, The Avenue, for instance - will also be on those deeds, and the owner of No 10. effectively has that, even though it's not on their deeds.
And the benefit owners can - and will - sue, in this case. OR be bought out.
Yes, indemnity insurance is great. (Although, your people could probably get the family one cancelled and save themselves the insurance if they went to the Land Tribunal and applied, assuming the landowners that have died out can't be found anywhere and that's been a long time - it's not really the family that matters, it's who owns the land now).

__________________


Pro player

Status: Offline
Posts: 1072
Date:

Attempt to block the plans fails but still a long way to go.

www.standard.co.uk/sport/tennis/wimbledon-opposition-groups-fail-first-bid-halt-39-court-expansion-plan-b980402.html

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Online
Posts: 46745
Date:

Yeh !!!

Wimbledon has just announced it's cancelling the daft (IMO) 12-12 final set tie-break and introducing a MTB at 6-6

(as are all Grand Slams, I believe)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/grand-slam-tie-breaks-all-four-tournaments-adopt-first-to-ten-deciders-xxhfwqt6z

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 26333
Date:

Coup Droit wrote:

Yeh !!!

Wimbledon has just announced it's cancelling the daft (IMO) 12-12 final set tie-break and introducing a MTB at 6-6

(as are all Grand Slams, I believe)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/grand-slam-tie-breaks-all-four-tournaments-adopt-first-to-ten-deciders-xxhfwqt6z


†that's good news and great that all are aligning. I am supportive of that as an approach, a MTB in final set works fine at 6 all. Good stuff



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 26333
Date:

Behind a paywall, so here is the press release on Wimbledon site

www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2022-03-16/grand_slam_tournaments_jointly_announce_10point_final_set_tiebreak_at_six_games_all.html

__________________


Hall of fame

Status: Offline
Posts: 8030
Date:

Just managed to get 2 Court 1 tickets on My Wimbledon app.

All days available if you are interested

__________________


ATP qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 2841
Date:

Not showing on my app.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 16668
Date:

I got Centre Court tickets in the LTA ballot for the first Thursday. Haven't been on Centre Court for several years, always been No 1.

__________________


Hall of fame

Status: Offline
Posts: 8030
Date:

emmsie69 wrote:

Not showing on my app.


†Try ticketsale.wimbledon.com/content?lang=en

Still on there now



__________________
«First  <  1 2 3 4 5 6 742  >  Last»  | Page of 42  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard