Paul Kohler's day in court is nearly here.

The new Wimbledon councillor will have his legal challenge heard by the High Court tomorrow (June 6) over plans by the London mayor’s office to close 37 of the current 73 police stations across the capital, including the one in Wimbledon.

The 59-year-old's fight began after he badly beaten by burglars in his own home.

He suffered a fractured eye socket, broken nose and severe internal bleeding in the assault

He believes the only reason he survived the brutality is because police officers were able to get to his house from the Wimbledon station.

"As a Londoner, and a parent, I am very concerned by the rise in violent crime and the corresponding decrease in detection rates that has coincided with government cuts to the Met’s budget," he said.

"It would be further folly to compound these problems by adopting the binary and unimaginative response to the funding crisis proposed by the mayor.

RELATED: Paul Kohler to fight against police station closure after being elected as Merton councillor

"His flawed and self-fulfilling consultation would further remove police from the communities they serve and endanger the entire concept of policing by consent that has always underpinned the British approach to law and order."

During the hearing, Mr Kohler’s lawyers Leigh Day will argue that the original public consultation and consequent decision were legally flawed and unlawful.

They argue that the mayor did not give proper consideration to the responses from a flawed consultation that failed both to reveal the criteria on which he made his decision; and provided insufficient information to enable Londoners to properly respond.

Solicitor Tessa Gregory, from Leigh Day, said: "It is our client’s case that the decision to close these stations is unlawful.

"The mayor decided to embark on a London-wide consultation, and a consultation of that scale which affects so many different communities, clearly needed to be very carefully planned with the public receiving adequate information to ensure they could respond intelligently.

“Our client contends that this consultation was marked by confusion: confusion over documents, confusion over the criteria to be applied - including the application of unpublished criteria and confusion over what information the public should be provided with and why."