High Court hears Hopwood Hall ownership dispute as DePree faces cross-examination

A High Court dispute over the future ownership of historic Hopwood Hall has begun in Manchester, with Hopwood DePree facing detailed questioning over planning permission, the proposed use of the building for weddings and events, catering facilities and the physical works required to bring the hall into use.

The proceedings concern a dispute over an option agreement relating to Hopwood Hall and whether the conditions necessary for the historic property to be transferred by Rochdale Borough Council were satisfied.

The agreement dates from 2017 and provided a route through which Mr DePree could acquire the hall, subject to specified conditions being met.

Hopwood Hall Estate Ltd maintains that the necessary requirements were satisfied and is seeking a declaration from the High Court concerning its rights under the agreement. Rochdale Borough Council disputes the claimant's position.

Mr DePree gave evidence during Tuesday's hearing and was cross-examined by Mr Wheatly, counsel for Rochdale Borough Council.

A substantial part of the cross-examination concerned the planning permission obtained for Hopwood Hall, the proposed future use of the building and whether the permission corresponded with what would actually be required to operate the hall.

Mr Wheatly questioned Mr DePree about plans to use parts of Hopwood Hall for weddings and other events, with particular attention paid to the catering facilities that would be required to support such a use.

The court heard that Mr DePree envisaged using an outside catering service, with food prepared elsewhere and brought across to the hall, rather than hot food being prepared in a main kitchen constructed within the hall itself.

Mr Wheatly put it to Mr DePree that, instead of having hot food prepared in the main kitchen, he expected a catering company to bring hot food across to the hall.

The questioning then focused on what the kitchen within the hall would actually be used for under such an arrangement. Mr Wheatly questioned the distinction between a main kitchen capable of preparing meals and facilities used for more limited food preparation, including sandwiches.

During the exchange, Mr Wheatly made the point that a main kitchen was not simply for a kettle, as he questioned what facilities would actually have been provided inside the hall.

The kitchen issue also led to detailed questioning about the need for a flue if a main kitchen capable of cooking hot food were to be installed within the historic building.

Mr Wheatly questioned Mr DePree about whether such a flue formed part of the planning proposals and what physical works would be required if hot food were to be prepared within the hall.

Mr DePree's evidence was that he expected catering arrangements to involve food being brought across to the hall rather than all hot food being prepared from scratch in a main kitchen inside the building.

There were a number of exchanges between Mr Wheatly and Mr DePree over precisely what was meant by a "main kitchen", what catering facilities were envisaged and the significance of a flue to the proposed operation of the venue.

Mr Wheatly repeatedly returned to the distinction between facilities used to serve or undertake limited preparation of food and a main kitchen equipped to prepare hot meals.

The line of questioning formed part of the council's wider case concerning whether the planning permission secured for Hopwood Hall corresponded with the proposed use of the building and the physical works which would be required to deliver that use.

The proposed operation of Hopwood Hall as a wedding and events venue featured repeatedly during the evidence, with Mr Wheatly questioning how such a venue would function in practice without a main kitchen capable of preparing hot meals for guests.

Mr DePree maintained that an external catering arrangement could be used, with food brought to the hall.

The court also heard questions about whether the planning permission obtained amounted to the detailed planning permission contemplated by the agreement and how the permission related to the physical restoration works required at Hopwood Hall.

During the cross-examination, Mr Wheatly pressed Mr DePree to give direct responses to a number of questions. At points he asked Mr DePree to answer with a "yes or no" response.

Mr Wheatly also referred in court to what he described as Mr DePree's "inability to answer questions"

The questioning extended to the chronology of the Hopwood Hall project, its business plans, proposed works and documents concerning how the building was intended to operate.

Mr DePree was also questioned about the relationship between the planning permission which had been secured and the physical works that would ultimately be necessary to restore the building and put the proposed uses into operation.

During another exchange, Mr Wheatly used the expression "the claimant letting the tail wag the dog" while advancing the council's position.

The court later heard evidence from Mark Robinson on behalf of Rochdale Borough Council.

Mr Robinson was questioned by counsel acting for Hopwood Hall Estate Ltd. His evidence concerned matters surrounding the history of the arrangements for Hopwood Hall, including the option agreement and dealings involving the council and those working on proposals for the building.

The questioning of Mr Robinson also touched on the relationship between the option agreement, planning permission and the proposed future use of Hopwood Hall.

Hopwood Hall is a Grade II*-listed historic property in Middleton which has been the subject of a long-running effort to secure its restoration and sustainable future.

At the centre of the High Court proceedings is whether the requirements of the agreement concerning the hall were satisfied and, consequently, what rights the respective parties now have under that agreement.

Hopwood Hall Estate Ltd maintains that it fulfilled the necessary requirements. Rochdale Borough Council contests that position.

Tuesday's hearing involved detailed examination of what had been proposed for the hall, the nature of the planning permission obtained, the physical works contemplated and whether those matters met the requirements governing the proposed transfer.

The questions and propositions put to witnesses during cross-examination represent matters being advanced and tested by the parties. They are not findings of fact by Judge Hodge KC.

No judgment was delivered on the first day of the hearing.

The case continues before His Honour Judge Hodge KC at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on Wednesday, 30 September 2026, at 10am.