West Ham United are considering a Supreme Court appeal after being ordered to pay £3.6m to their landlord at the London Stadium.
The Hammers have called the former Olympic stadium their home since they chose to leave Upton Park in 2016. As part of the rental agreement, an “anti-embarrassment clause” was put in place that requires the club to pay their landlords a share of any profit generated in selling shares.
The clause was activated when Czech billionaire, Daniel Kretinsky, bought 27% stake in the club in 2021. That deal made him the second-largest shareholder, behind David Sullivan, who owns 38.8% of West Ham.
After that deal was concluded, West Ham’s landlord’s informed the club that they were owed significant payment. The club delivered £2.6m whilst challenging the further £3.6m that had been requested. The matter was referred to an independent external determination, who in turn, sided with the London Stadium.
West Ham would take the matter to High Court, this time winning the case in their favour. The London Stadium would then appeal, seeing the decision overturned.
Court Statements
A London Stadium spokesperson said: “We are pleased by today’s decision which reinstates the original finding that London Stadium should be paid the £3.6m plus costs and interest owed to it by West Ham Holdings Ltd. We have a responsibility to the taxpayer to recover all funds that are due, and we have always been confident in the strength of our case.
“This has been a long legal process, with the expert determination made in our favour three years ago, and this unanimous judgement from three Appeal Court judges should be the time to draw a line under the matter.
“We want to move forward with meaningful collaboration, so the focus can be on the future and showcasing London at its best — including delivering the remainder of the football season and a fantastic summer of events at this outstanding and world‑class, multi‑use venue.”
West Ham said in a statement via The Athletic: “West Ham United and the London Stadium sought clarification from an independent expert as to a payment due under the Concession Agreement. The determination by such expert was, in West Ham United’s view, made in error.
“The matter was referred to the High Court and the judge agreed with West Ham United that the expert’s determination was wrong. The Stadium challenged the High Court’s decision, and the Court of Appeal has decided that the expert’s determination was not so flawed that it justified a court intervening to overturn the decision.
“West Ham United has sought leave to appeal, so we will not be making further comment at this time.”
West Ham were recently fined for their players action’s in a Premier League match with Chelsea, the club are now considering Supreme Court action to avoid any more financial losses.
