Golfer loses libel case over handicap claim

A 75-year-old amateur golfer has been left with a hefty legal bill after he lost a High Court action for libel over what he said was a notice from his club which he claimed wrongly meant he had cheated about his playing ability.

Mr Justice Daniel Herbert also awarded costs of the case, which lasted 21 days in the High Court, against the golfer. The final costs bill is expected to run in to hundreds of thousands of euro. After the case, the pensioner said he intended appealing the costs order.

Thomas Talbot sued his former club, the Hermitage in Lucan, Dublin, claiming he was defamed in a certificate sent to him by the handicap sub-committee in Jul 2003 stating his handicap was 13, with the words “General Play (Handicap Building)” at the bottom.

A golfer’s handicap is an allowance of strokes allocated based on ability and means more shots can be taken to reach the hole than the person’s true level of play would allow.

A retired insurance official who represented himself, Mr Talbot claimed the use of those words meant he was cheating at golf. He sued Hermitage Golf Club, its handicap sub-committee chairman at the time, Eddie Murphy, and the Golfing Union of Ireland.

Yesterday, Mr Justice Daniel Herbert rejected claims Mr Talbot had been defamed and that there had been a conspiracy against him by the club borne out of Mr Murphy’s vindictiveness and ill-will towards him.

The judge found the words “handicap building” were defamatory, and any reasonable and well-informed golfer would fairly conclude that he was being accused of consciously and deliberately inflating his handicap to give himself an unfair advantage in the game by misrepresenting his true playing ability.

However, the judge said, he was also satisfied the words were not published to a third party, which is a requirement for a document to be libellous. The certificate of his handicap was only addressed to Mr Talbot and contained in a sealed envelope left for him in the men’s competition room.

The judge was also satisfied that when this information was transferred onto a new database on the club’s computer system, that this was publication but it was done on an occasion of qualified privilege.

Mr Talbot had told the court that in 2002-03, the sub-committee had reduced his handicap six times, something not suffered by any other member from when he joined the club in 1962 until 2006, the judge said. No other player had been accused of handicap building during that period either, Mr Talbot had said.

The judge said correspondence in 2003 demonstrated to him that members of the sub-committee, including Mr Murphy, were seeking to resolve the divisive issue of Mr Talbot’s handicap.

Mr Murphy had no involvement whatsoever in a decision of the Leinster branch of the Golfing Union of Ireland to carry out an audit of the club in 2003 and 2004 which led to the mistaken suspension of Mr Talbot’s handicap, for which he later received an apology, the judge said.

He was also satisfied Mr Murphy did not induce three members of the club to write letters of complaint about Mr Talbot’s conduct at a Dec 2004 AGM when there had been a number of exchanges about the running of the club.

The club’s executive committee found Mr Talbot was seriously abusive towards Mr Murphy at the meeting. It was not reasonable to contend the decision of Mr Murphy to complain about this was evidence of spite and ill-will, the judge said.

In light of this, he was satisfied Mr Talbot had not discharged the burden of proof that Mr Murphy and other members of the sub-committee were actuated by motives of spite and ill-will towards him or by some other improper motive.

Therefore, the occasion of publication of the material was untainted by malice and remains privileged.