Sources close to Andy Murray have rubbished media reports that he is set to lose £500,000 after a High Court judge blocked plans for an exclusive hotel and golf course on greenbelt land.
It was known that the tennis ace had acquired shares in the planned development by Longshot at Cherkley Court, near Leatherhead, the former home of press baron Lord Beaverbrook.
Last Friday the Independent reported that he was set to lose £500,000 - almost a third of his prize money for winning Wimbledon this year - when the scheme's planning permission was quashed last month.
But sources close to the Wimbledon champion told the Epsom Guardian that no money has actually been lost.
Longshot spokesman Nick Kilby said: "That’s absolute conjecture and we do not recognise the thought that anyone has lost any money."
He declined to comment on how much individual shareholders had invested or how much money is riding on the development.
Cherkley Court is the former home of Lord Beaverbrook
Mr Kilby said he understands the owners of Cherkley Court are seeking the right to appeal Mr Justice Haddon Cave’s decision from the Court of Appeal.
He said: "It is not a surprise that the judge did not give the right to appeal against his own decision as that would perhaps suggest that he was not comfortable himself with his own answers.
"However, the Cherkley Court owners are now following the Court of Appeal process and will be taking their case further."
And he confirmed that they will not take any action to restore the landscape, damaged by preparatory work to create the golf course, until the legal process has run its course.
Cherkley Campaign brought a judicial review of Mole Valley District Council's decision to grant permission for plans for a ‘world class’ hotel, private members’ golf course and spa.
But Andy Smith, Surrey branch director of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, which backs the Cherkley Campaign, said Mr Justice Haddon Cave had refused right to appeal his decision because "he considered that the result would be the same after an appeal. He also said that it is clear from his judgement that this is not a finely balanced case.
"This should be the end of the legal battles but if Longshot want to come back like a corpse rising from the dead then let them come. We are ready for them."
When Mole Valley District Council was asked for its legal costs, John Northcott, portfolio holder of planning, said: "There will be a full review conducted into the legal costs involved as part of this process but, at this stage, the total cost has not yet been established.
"We will need to consider an appropriate strategy going forward, following discussions with our external legal advisors, and this will include whether there is any justification or scope for considering an appeal."
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here