75 year old sues for 10m

fonda

Whats all this about, seems a bit crazy.

A 75-year-old pensioner at the centre of a €10m lawsuit against his former golf club -- which he claims damaged his reputation by lowering his handicap -- plans to share his windfall with his extended family if successful.

Thomas Talbot, a retired insurance official, claims his reputation was damaged after Hermitage Golf Club in Lucan, Co Dublin reduced his handicap by 7.7 shots between 1999 and 2004, and wants €10m in damages.

He is suing both the club and Eddie Murphy, its former handicap secretary, in the High Court for defamation.

Mr Talbot, who is representing himself in court, alleges a cumulative reduction of his handicap by 7.7 shots between 1999 and 2004 was tantamount to being branded a cheat.

"I have four grown-up kids -- Nicola, Colin, Alison, Frances. For personal reasons I don't know whether they're living in Dublin or abroad. I miss them terribly," he told the Irish Independent last night.

Mr Talbot describes the personal toll the past six years has taken on him.

"This case has been going on for the past six years. It has been hugely stressful. I didn't care so much about the handicap issue, it is more the principle of it.

"I'd turn up for a competition and there would be nobody to play with. I have learned the hard way that friends are a funny species -- they're never there when you want them.

"I'm generally a shy person until I get the bit between my teeth and then I come out of my box.

"My handicap is currently 21. I handed in my notice last month that I was leaving Hermitage. I went up Portmarnock Golf Links on Saturday and joined as a five-day member," he added.

The club says that under GUI Rule 19 it had to reduce his handicap if it believed it was too high relative to his ability.

The club and Mr Murphy deny the claims. The 21-day trial ended on Thursday after submissions by Mr Talbot, with a ruling expected within two weeks.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/golfer-75-sues-for-10m-after-handicap-lowered-3026902.html

jaykay74

The Indo is basically a tabloid so a large pinch of salt required. Story is so badly written!

BoardsMember

jaykay74 wrote: »

The Indo is basically a tabloid so a large pinch of salt required. Story is so badly written!

A large pinch of salt required for what? Do you think that this is made up and wasn't in the High court? There's not much latitude in the story for untruths or any misleading stuff, due to there being very little in the story full stop. I'm in agreement that the Indo is a rag, but this is an interesting story, and doesnt appear to have any sensationalist type input.

Davidth88

This was also on the front page of the Sunday Times .

My reaction ( not commenting on anything legal as such ) , was I bet he is popular in the Hermitage GC .

Can you imagine the members reaction , this is costing their club a fortune in legal fees win or lose .

foxyboxer

First World Problems.

jaykay74

BoardsMember wrote: »

A large pinch of salt required for what? Do you think that this is made up and wasn't in the High court? There's not much latitude in the story for untruths or any misleading stuff, due to there being very little in the story full stop. I'm in agreement that the Indo is a rag, but this is an interesting story, and doesnt appear to have any sensationalist type input.

I believe the case exists obviously. Is he looking for 10m though ? I guess I just hate the style of Indo reporting. Have a bit of a chat with the guy and thats your story. No actual details of the case.

The bit about his kids, a bit random

Better article on the case below.

http://www.sportsnewsireland.com/other_sports/86733/

BoardsMember

I'd say the handicap sec in Portmarnock Links will be reluctant to cut him on observation!

Cionád

A 21 day trial, that is unbelievable.

foxyboxer

€200,000 legal bill for the GUI and €300,000 for the Hermitage. Unbelievable.

Whatever about the handicap issue damaging his reputation, I think the pure waste of half a million euro will severely hamper any plans for both organisations in future, just to placate someones ego, will harm the reputation Mr Talbot cares so much about a whole lot more.

golfwallah

jaykay74 wrote: »

Better article on the case below.

http://www.sportsnewsireland.com/other_sports/86733/

Good link with sound advice for Handicap Secs re suggested changes to club constitutions. Needed to help clubs avoid legal costs of cases like this!

PhilipMarlowe

The bit about the kids is maybe trying to show some background into the man.
I also guess they are treading softly as everyone here would be similarly wise to do because the man has been described as a "serial litigant" by a supreme court justice, and also as a man with grievances.
He has recently been involved in cases about dividing a home with a onetime partner, his employer, his union, his law firm, his golf club (& handicap sec. & national union).
Must be hard to find the time to practice & get the handicap down...

Martin567

jaykay74 wrote: »

I believe the case exists obviously. Is he looking for 10m though ? I guess I just hate the style of Indo reporting. Have a bit of a chat with the guy and thats your story. No actual details of the case.

The bit about his kids, a bit random

Better article on the case below.

http://www.sportsnewsireland.com/other_sports/86733/[/QUOTE]

That's actually an incredibly dull article which gives almost no information about the case at all. It seems to be directed more at giving general advice to clubs as to how to deal with disputes. It may be good advice but it's certainly not the better article of the two as regards this particular case.

FixdePitchmark

The Sunday Times has a good article, but can't find a link.

Must say , it is a mad case.

You would read the sunday times article and think he may have a case. As mad as that sounds.

Gingernuts31

Would be different if he played for a living but he is a pensioner who has it as a hobby. It should have never gotten to the high court for such a stupid case. He obsivously can't take it that the GC doesn't think he is great and his ego is hurt so he wants to make them pay for it. I hope the judge awards damages to the GC for the tarnish of their name as they are a business and this old geezer is just an old man who has a hurt ego.

Martin567

Gingernuts31 wrote: »

Would be different if he played for a living but he is a pensioner who has it as a hobby. It should have never gotten to the high court for such a stupid case. He obsivously can't take it that the GC doesn't think he is great and his ego is hurt so he wants to make them pay for it. I hope the judge awards damages to the GC for the tarnish of their name as they are a business and this old geezer is just an old man who has a hurt ego.

Surely it's the opposite. His handicap has been reduced so the Golf Club believes he is a better player than what he claims himself.

Gingernuts31

I know feck all about golf so why complain when the club thinks your better than you actually are? Surely this would give you a boost not a trip to court to make them say your oh sorry your not as good as we thought you were. Then he would have a hurt ego.

Webbs

Gingernuts31 wrote: »

I know feck all about golf so why complain when the club thinks your better than you actually are? Surely this would give you a boost not a trip to court to make them say your oh sorry your not as good as we thought you were. Then he would have a hurt ego.

This stems from the manipulation of some golfers of their handicaps upwards so as to make them more competititve when big prizes are on offer.

The cutting of the handicaps by a club are then seen by these guys as accusing them of cheating with their handicaps

Johnny_Fontane

Webbs wrote: »

This stems from the manipulation of some golfers of their handicaps upwards so as to make them more competititve when big prizes are on offer.

The cutting of the handicaps by a club are then seen by these guys as accusing them of cheating with their handicaps

i was cut in 2009/2010 by a shot each year for generally being very close to standard scratch most of the time. I never won anything, but because I was so consistant, i got cut due to rule whatever.

I was delighted and would never see this as the committee seeing me as anything.

Dtoffee

Is this the third thread on this subject ? .... if its Thomas Talbot then one poster pointed out that he has a history of going to court at every opportunity...... la la !!!!

Loire

If I was playing to a handicap of 28 I would be delighted to be cut to 21. Instead of taking it as cheating I'd take it that I was playing better and my very next goal would be to get to 18.

BigChap1759

Dtoffee wrote: »

Is this the third thread on this subject ? .... if its Thomas Talbot then one poster pointed out that he has a history of going to court at every opportunity...... la la !!!!

Can you supply a link to the other threads please?

spacecoyote

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

i was cut in 2009/2010 by a shot each year for generally being very close to standard scratch most of the time. I never won anything, but because I was so consistant, i got cut due to rule whatever.

I was delighted and would never see this as the committee seeing me as anything.

Agree with you here, I've had general play cuts for the last 2 years and was chuffed to get them.

But you know there are plenty of guys out there nursing their handicaps, happy to take a few quid off their playing mates every weekend but not really interested in trying to go lower.

L.O.F.T

Dtoffee wrote: »

Is this the third thread on this subject ?

BigChap1759 wrote: »

Can you supply a link to the other threads please?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056553781

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=59965411

Ormus

golfwallah wrote: »

Good link with sound advice for Handicap Secs re suggested changes to club constitutions. Needed to help clubs avoid legal costs of cases like this!

I don't think it is sound advice in this case. People who have been publicly defamed will want their day in court, the more public the better.

The article in the Indo misses the whole point of what the guy is alleging. He is saying that not alone did they cut his handicap by 7.7 shots, but the reason they gave was 'handicap building'. For anyone not familiar, that means they are accusing the guy of purposely playing badly so that his handicap would increase and then he could play well in some big competition when there were big prizes on offer. Very bad golfing etiquette.

There are golfers at every club in Ireland who have a reputation for doing this but Irish people usually just grumble about them behind their backs rather than publicly accuse them of it. Thing is, it's very very hard to prove that someone has done this, so it was foolish to make the accusation.

stringy

I wish my club would take that approach with some of our members. I'd represent them for free if it came to court!

foxyboxer

But doesn't cutting handicap's negate the intention behind 'handicap building'?

If they are doing it to increase the chances of winning prizes then they can't cry foul if their handicap is cut when they are successful.

However, if they are intentionally handicap building and not winning prizes then it can be argued that whilst they may be doing it on purpose, the fact that they are not yielding the results of that practice suggests that their 'built' handicap is a true reflection on their ability.

Ormus

foxyboxer wrote: »

But doesn't cutting handicap's negate the intention behind 'handicap building'?

If they are doing it to increase the chances of winning prizes then they can't cry foul if their handicap is cut when they are successful.

However, if they are intentionally handicap building and not winning prizes then it can be argued that whilst they may be doing it on purpose, the fact that they are not yielding the results of that practice suggests that their 'built' handicap is a true reflection on their ability.

Yes, they cut the guy's handicap because they believed he had been purposefully building it.

A guy could play badly on purpose in lots of meaningless competitions and then play to his true ability in a big competition with big prizes or prestige. It's a form of cheating.

He would be willing to have his handicap cut as long as he got to win the prizes he wanted to win.

Webbs

foxyboxer wrote: »

But doesn't cutting handicap's negate the intention behind 'handicap building'?

If they are doing it to increase the chances of winning prizes then they can't cry foul if their handicap is cut when they are successful.

However, if they are intentionally handicap building and not winning prizes then it can be argued that whilst they may be doing it on purpose, the fact that they are not yielding the results of that practice suggests that their 'built' handicap is a true reflection on their ability.

Ireland perhaps uniquely has the largest prizes for society and am-am golf, these have fallen outside the 'qualifying' competitions so no handicap cuts for winning these and hence the golfers who handicap build to play in these.

IITYWYBMAD

Ormus wrote: »

I don't think it is sound advice in this case. People who have been publicly defamed will want their day in court, the more public the better.

The article in the Indo misses the whole point of what the guy is alleging. He is saying that not alone did they cut his handicap by 7.7 shots, but the reason they gave was 'handicap building'. For anyone not familiar, that means they are accusing the guy of purposely playing badly so that his handicap would increase and then he could play well in some big competition when there were big prizes on offer. Very bad golfing etiquette.

There are golfers at every club in Ireland who have a reputation for doing this but Irish people usually just grumble about them behind their backs rather than publicly accuse them of it. Thing is, it's very very hard to prove that someone has done this, so it was foolish to make the accusation.

I was just about to post asking what exactly this case was about, when I came across the post above.

What most don't know when it comes to libel, the onus is on the defendant, and not the litigant.

Think about that for a second....the law recognises that the person taking the case has been wronged from the get-go.

It's then up to the golf club (in this case) to prove that they did not defame the complainant. They have to make a business decision on whether they defend the case or settle? Anyway, they're screwed. It costs.

I've no opinion on the merits of the case taken, but people should make their own judgement from the facts that have already been put forward, and more importantly, their own experience.

opinion guy

What a waste of the courts time.

Ormus

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I was just about to post asking what exactly this case was about, when I came across the post above.

What most don't know when it comes to libel, the onus is on the defendant, and not the litigant.

Think about that for a second....the law recognises that the person taking the case has been wronged from the get-go.

It's then up to the golf club (in this case) to prove that they did not defame the complainant. They have to make a business decision on whether they defend the case or settle? Anyway, they're screwed. It costs.

I've no opinion on the merits of the case taken, but people should make their own judgement from the facts that have already been put forward, and more importantly, their own experience.

Yep, its a mess alright. They guy won't get anywhere near €10 million but he will screw over the golf club and the GUI, whether successful or not.

Also the incoming President of the GUI is from Hermitage GC, major embarasment for him.

I think defamation law gets abused at times, the guy is chancing his arm and is costing everybody money and turning it into a losing situation for everyone.

Then again, maybe he has been wronged. He sounds like a pain in the ass from what we've heard though.

Myksyk

The first commandment of The Handicap Secretary's Bible is:
Never, ever accuse someone of "handicap building". There is no way to prove it barring a signed confession. You may feel you know it... The whole club might ... But if you put it in writing or say it in a public forum you are simply asking for trouble.

Ormus

Myksyk wrote: »

The first commandment of The Handicap Secretary's Bible is:
Never, ever accuse someone of "handicap building". There is no way to prove it barring a signed confession. You may feel you know it... The whole club might ... But if you put it in writing or say it in a public forum you are simply asking for trouble.

Very true, so foolish to accuse someone of something which is impossible to prove.

You may be right, but without proof, you will always be in the wrong.

BigChap1759

Lads what source do we have that he was actually accused of handicap building?

TheGrump

Ormus wrote: »

Yep, its a mess alright. They guy won't get anywhere near €10 million but he will screw over the golf club and the GUI, whether successful or not.

Also the incoming President of the GUI is from Hermitage GC, major embarasment for him.

I think defamation law gets abused at times, the guy is chancing his arm and is costing everybody money and turning it into a losing situation for everyone.

Then again, maybe he has been wronged. He sounds like a pain in the ass from what we've heard though.

Why is it a major embarrasment for him??????
I think Hermitage should be applauded for cutting if they believe there was handicap building going on. If the guy then threatens legal action they should stand by their decision if they believe it to be correct.

Ormus

BigChap1759 wrote: »

Lads what source do we have that he was actually accused of handicap building?

It was in the article I saw in the Sunday Times.

Ormus

TheGrump wrote: »

Why is it a major embarrasment for him??????
I think Hermitage should be applauded for cutting if they believe there was handicap building going on. If the guy then threatens legal action they should stand by their decision if they believe it to be correct.

It's embarrassing for him going to take over the head role in the GUI when his own club is causing that same organisation a major headache.

I don't think the Hermitage should be applauded at all. If they believed the guy was handicap building, they were right to cut his handicap, but they could easily have said it was for general play (the usual vague reason given) rather than make an obvious attempt to insult the guy by saying handicap building. What they did was very foolish, and they picked on the wrong guy.

They asked for trouble and they got it, for themselves and the GUI.

L.O.F.T

PhilipMarlowe wrote: »

I also guess they are treading softly as everyone here would be similarly wise to do because the man has been described as a "serial litigant" by a supreme court justice, and also as a man with grievances.

A wise statement in bold

Loire

Ormus wrote: »

Yes, they cut the guy's handicap because they believed he had been purposefully building it.

Absolutely no offense to anyone playing to a 28 handicap, but it's pretty pathetic that anyone would actually want to play to 28 just to win a prize. I could understand someone playing off 13 or 14 letting themselves go up to 17 say (and I'm totally against this), but 28....that's insane.

Ormus

Loire wrote: »

Absolutely no offense to anyone playing to a 28 handicap, but it's pretty pathetic that anyone would actually want to play to 28 just to win a prize. I could understand someone playing off 13 or 14 letting themselves go up to 17 say (and I'm totally against this), but 28....that's insane.

True, although 28 wouldn't be unheard of for a 75 year old.

golfwallah

Ormus wrote: »

I don't think it is sound advice in this case. People who have been publicly defamed will want their day in court, the more public the better.

The advice comes from a partner in a law firm (but please read full article contained in link below for all details):

“Estimated legal costs for the Hermitage are €200,000.00 and the GUI faces a legal bill of close to €300,000.00............. Win, lose or draw the Hermitage golf club and the GUI will suffer a hemorrhaging balance sheet and are likely to do so for years to come” – source: http://www.sportsnewsireland.com/other_sports/86733/

Ormus

golfwallah wrote: »

The advice comes from a partner in a law firm (but please read full article contained in link below for all details):

“Estimated legal costs for the Hermitage are €200,000.00 and the GUI faces a legal bill of close to €300,000.00............. Win, lose or draw the Hermitage golf club and the GUI will suffer a hemorrhaging balance sheet and are likely to do so for years to come” – source: http://www.sportsnewsireland.com/other_sports/86733/

His advice is sound as general advice for golf clubs regarding legal disputes, but it's flawed advice for the case in hand. This man has been publicly defamed. He wants his defamers to be publicly denounced. A confidential settlement using ADR would certainly save everyone money, but it seems that he is more concerned with the damage to his reputation and is out for blood.

Also that whole article seems to be a not very thinly veiled advertisement for a 'sports solicitor'.

golfwallah

Ormus,
I've no idea where you're coming from as you're assuming this case has been decided, which it hasn't.
But either way, someone has to pay, all golfers registered with the GUI and members of Hermitage ..... no matter who wins the court case.
The article makes perfect sense to me (on amending club rules to have matters like this dealt with at club level, before they end up as the subject of an expensive court case) .... but then you may have superior legal or golf club management experience to back up your views.
The first port of call should not be the courts, when the majority of such issues can be resolved without expensive litigation.
With so many more important issues facing the country in general and golfers in particular, it is in everyone's interest to keep stuff like this from being escalated to the High Court.

Ormus

golfwallah wrote: »

Ormus,
I've no idea where you're coming from as you're assuming this case has been decided, which it hasn't.
But either way, someone has to pay, all golfers registered with the GUI and members of Hermitage ..... no matter who wins the court case.
The article makes perfect sense to me (on amending club rules to have matters like this dealt with at club level, before they end up as the subject of an expensive court case) .... but then you may have superior legal or golf club management experience to back up your views.
The first port of call should not be the courts, when the majority of such issues can be resolved without expensive litigation.
With so many more important issues facing the country in general and golfers in particular, it is in everyone's interest to keep stuff like this from being escalated to the High Court.

I'm not assuming the case has been decided, just going on what I've read.

I think it's a fault of the system that this guy can simply get offended and take it all the way to the High Court, and that he isn't too worried about what happens if he loses. What can they really do to a 75 year old man of straw?

So the first port of call should not be the courts, and the judge should take a very dim view of someone taking up very valuable court time with a petty squabble over golf. But at the same time ADR cannot be forced on a person. It requires the consent of both parties. If this guy has been publicly defamed, or even if he thinks he has, he will have no interest in a private settlement. He wants it to be as public as possible and thats why its gone all the way to the High Court and into the national papers.

ADR is a great idea in general, but it has to be in both parties interests and can't be unilateral.

golfwallah

Ormus wrote: »

I'm not assuming the case has been decided, just going on what I've read.

I think it's a fault of the system that this guy can simply get offended and take it all the way to the High Court ..........

So the first port of call should not be the courts ..... ADR cannot be forced on a person. It requires the consent of both parties.

Maybe we should just wait till the court makes its decision and see what, if any, recommendations the GUI makes to clubs on this issue.

Either way, I'm sure this case will prompt debate among club members and at committee level as to how to resolve such disputes as early as possible.

Ultimately, constitution changes are matters for members at AGMs but considered debate about the options should help in coming up with better solutions than the litigation route we are currently witnessing.

Ormus

golfwallah wrote: »

Maybe we should just wait till the court makes its decision and see what, if any, recommendations the GUI makes to clubs on this issue.

Either way, I'm sure this case will prompt debate among club members and at committee level as to how to resolve such disputes as early as possible.

Ultimately, constitution changes are matters for members at AGMs but considered debate about the options should help in coming up with better solutions than the litigation route we are currently witnessing.

As someone said already, the biggest lesson to be learned out of all this is to never accuse a golfer of handicap building without proof.

thebaz

is he a serial litagator ?

this case has everything that is wrong with Ireland - Greed - looking for 10 Million, just wasting courts time over something so trivial - if he loses , I'd counter sue , and make him, or anyone else, think twice before taking such a stupid issue to court

Hibrasil

thebaz wrote: »

is he a serial litagator ?

this case has everything that is wrong with Ireland - Greed - looking for 10 Million, just wasting courts time over something so trivial - if he loses , I'd counter sue , and make him, or anyone else, think twice before taking such a stupid issue to court

check out these links:-

http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/021C2EB792BDCED180257585003E12EB?Open&Highlight=0,talbot,~language_en~

http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/2E4B5506D2A9EBFF80257585003C947A?Open&Highlight=0,talbot,~language_en~

http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/91DBDAEF9A2DAC6D80257585003D486F?Open&Highlight=0,talbot,~language_en~


No good suing somebody like that...no money in kitty after all bills paid.

Hanners

All to the list of losers all GUI members who pay the yearly levy who will now need to cover this cash, the Junior Members who have benifited from subsidised coaching from the GUI which will surely be affected. No winner in this one apart from the legal system paticipants

BoardsMember

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

What most don't know when it comes to libel, the onus is on the defendant, and not the litigant.

I'm no lawyer, but I doubt this is the case.

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Think about that for a second....the law recognises that the person taking the case has been wronged from the get-go.

I thought about this for less than a second and I concluded it is complete nonsense!

Have you anything to base this on? This would seem to completely contradict "innocent til proven guilty", i.e. if the person is presumed innocent then the inference if that no defamation (or whatever) has ocurred until proven.

golfwallah

According to article in Wikipedia: “A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth” – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#How_to_prove_libel.