In my opinion, the golf club has a duty to ensure that they do as much as they can to prevent errant golf balls flying into your property and potentially injuring someone (i have been hit by a golf ball, it hurts, alot!) Many moons ago I was a member of a club where 1 or 2 holes ran parallel to a major route into the city. We were required to have personal insurance just in case we hurt someone with an errant shot. The holes had a big fence along the boundary but still golf balls went over. Not mine I hasten to add, I was too good for that! ;) Dave

Hi Chas, There is a long line in cases which you should check out on Negligence and Nuisance-Civil actions/tort. Famous cases include Bolton v Stone 1951 and Miller v Jackson 1977. [Both cricket cases-Lord Denning's judgement is brilliant [but wrong, class issue, perhaps?] Talk to your neighbour about the judgements and get them to build a fence [or they'll maybe pay damages for injury.] I'm not sure that S3 HSWA could apply in relation to the golf course not conducting its activities safely and people other than its employees being hurt. I'd have a go at that. Regards Mike

Just get netting installed

Balls come over could be regarded as a nuisance and so you might be able to get an injunction but that approach is not straight forward as the court would take other things into consideration such as whether the golf course was there before the factory etc.

Hi Chas, Given the general supporting advice on the forum, what have you decided to do? Now that the problem has been recognised and partially addressed it's time for action, eh? I well remember pointing out a similar but more serious issue during an audit to be met with the comment 'I wish you hadn't brought that up, now I will have to do something!' [In an American accent] Go for Miller v Jackson updated for the 21st century as such cases may depend on changes in social mores and litigiousness and public policy of course. Plus netting isn't going to cost that much or is it? Best Regards Mike PS Moving to a nuisance is not a generally acceptable defence in law however unfair it may appear.ie moving to country smells, air bases, etc.

Hi Chris, More info for you-quite recent too. [2013] A settlement has finally been reached in the case of the golfer who lost his eye on the golf course and successfully sued both the golfer and the golf club, Niddry Castle, [Scotland] for hundreds of thousands of pounds. The six-year saga has ended with an undisclosed settlement and both the Scottish Golf Union (SGU) and Golf Union of Wales (GUW) issuing a warning to all golf clubs. In 2007, Anthony Phee, a visitor at Niddry Castle Golf Club in Scotland, lost an eye when a ball hit by James Gordon struck him. He then launched a case against Gordon for dangerous play and a case against Niddry Castle for poor risk management with regards the course’s layout. In 2011 Phee was awarded just under £400,000, of which the club had to pay nearly £120,000 due to a lack of warning signs, and the golfer the remainder. Niddry Castle appealed the decision and, to its surprise, in 2013 the appeal court substantially increased – by an extra £200,000 – the amount the club had to pay Phee, reducing Gordon’s liability to less than £80,000 (from 70 percent to 20 percent). [Interesting, eh?] According to insurance magazine Post, the three parties have now agreed a settlement amid warnings that the saga, and rises in costs, could have continued for several more years. The case has led to the SGU and GUW issuing a joint statement calling for golf clubs to pay greater attention to risk management. [your issue, Chris] ‘This decision makes it imperative that clubs give greater attention to general health and safety procedures, in particular the area of course hazards, and the insurance you have in place at your club. ‘The court found the club’s failure to warn was a significant failure and was of a greater magnitude than that of Mr Gordon,’ it said. Three Scottish local authorities that run golf courses have said they have carried out reviews of their procedures following the case. Glasgow Life said it was examining its guidance to players in the light of the judgment, a spokeswoman for South Lanarkshire Council said a review had been undertaken “of our on-course risk assessments incorporating directional and safety signage” and Edinburgh Leisure said that after the court case it introduced compulsory golfers’ insurance which covers individuals who play on its municipal courses. “The more warning signs the better the chance of all members, guests and walkers on the course will be aware of the need for vigilance,” he said. The SGU and GUW statement pointed out that Niddry Castle had encouraged visitors to play on the golf course, whether or not they were experienced golfers. ‘It was not entitled to assume that the people walking on the course were aware of the rules of golf or how to respond to a warning shout,’ it said. ‘It ought to have been aware that some golfers would be beginners or relatively inexperienced and it was not entitled to assume that all golfers would play in a safe manner all of the time. ‘Niddry Castle had a lack of any local rule that players could not drive from the 18th tee when people were walking on the path and there was no evidence that golfers were specifically discouraged from doing so. The statement concluded: ‘Golf clubs and responsible officials need to understand that the general duty of care to members, visitors and employees has not altered, however this judgment places an onerous responsibility on clubs to ensure that the appropriate risk assessments are completed and that members and visitors are fully aware of the rules of golf.’ Kate Bennett of HBM Sayers Solicitors, representing Mr Gordon, said her client remained disappointed that there was no finding of negligence on the part of Mr Phee for his failure to respond to warning shouts. She welcomed the SGU’s decision to recommend golf clubs give greater attention to general health and safety procedures and insurance arrangements however, and added that individual golfers are also encouraged to carry specialist golfers’ insurance. Surely enough ammunition to get your neighbour to pull its collective finger out! Regards Mike PS: I believe it mightbe possible to use Sect3 HSWA so I'm with Corfield that it is an OHS matter in your case PPS: Apparently there are 12,000 incidents requiring a visit to hospital [unconfirmed number]

Mike An interesting case and thanks for highlighting it. There should not be too much reliance on this type of judgment because each case will be judged on its own individual circumstances. I would also like to add as an avid golfer I am all too familiar with these types of issues. Indeed I am a member of a private club that has public walkways going through the course, as do many others, we have warning notices at the entrance and exit of these walkways. However many members of the public completely ignore these notices and walk/run into the fairway regardless of whether golfers are about to hit their shot.