Stuart Crocket V. Tantallon Golf Club
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Reed |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] CSOH 37 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 15 March 2005 |
| Year | 2005 |
| Date | 15 March 2005 |
| Docket Number | P1352/04 |
| OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2005] CSOH 37 | |
| P1352/04
| OPINION OF LORD REED in the Petition of STUART CROCKET Petitioner; against TANTALLON GOLF CLUB Respondents: For Judicial Review ________________ |
Petitioner: D M Thomson; Blacklock Thorley
Respondents: Wallace; McKay & Norwell, W.S.
15 March 2005
Introduction
[1]On 11 June 2001 an article appeared in the Scotsman newspaper under the headline, "Golf club bunkered as moaning member issues writ for £60,000". The article, which occupied half a page, stated inter alia:
"His approach and putting could use a little more practice but golfer Stuart Crocket has worked hard on perfecting his whinge. The retired businessman is attempting to sue a leading Scottish golf club for £60,000 in the latest of a series of petty disputes stretching back more than a decade. During one year Mr Crocket allegedly made 170 written complaints to the committee of Tantallon Golf Club close to his home in North Berwick. Many were concerning other golfers on the links course who failed to observe the 148- year-old club's dress code. After he was asked to stop making 'excessive, improper and unnecessary' use of the club suggestion book, Mr Crocket made 24 further entries in the book over a period of 18 months. He also reported the 300-member club to the Lord Lyon's Court, complaining that the coat of arms on the club badge did not observe the rules of heraldry. There was a further dispute over a £30 bill for solicitor's expenses which resulted in a small claims summons being issued against the club manager. When a club member accused him of being spiteful, 76-year-old Mr Crocket tried, unsuccessfully, to sue him for defamation. The action failed because it was time-lapsed - the offending remark having been made eight years earlier. Mr Crocket did have his day in court when the club members voted overwhelmingly to expel him - the first time a member had been asked to leave in more than a century. He took the case to the Court of Session in Edinburgh and had the decision overturned, forcing the club to reinstate him as a member. His latest foray into the legal arena is an attempt to sue the club over a memo to an advocate, describing Mr Crocket's continued presence as a 'source of disharmony within the club'. Mr Crocket saw the comments when he asked to have the club's legal correspondence disclosed to him as part of a different dispute. He has produced a writ claiming £60,000 damages, plus legal expenses, on the grounds the memo is an 'unfair, spiteful, malicious defamation'. Mr Crocket, a divorcee (sic) who has no children, readily acknowledges his litigation has made him about as popular with fellow members as a snowstorm on the 9th tee. 'Sometimes I am short of playing partners. There is a deathly hush when I walk into the club', he said 'But I am not bothered about that, I am not running for presidency. I simply will not be defamed and I will not be bullied, it has been deeply hurtful to me'. Mr Crocket added: 'I admit I have made a lot of complaints although I don't know if it is as many as they say it is. I still write to them now about matters such as the dress code. I will point out to the committee if people are not observing the code. One example is that you are not allowed to wear an overcoat in the main lounge, you use the dressing room to hang your coat up. If people don't observe little rules, it should be drawn to the attention of the club. I should be able to raise any matter that is of interest to me as a member of the club, otherwise things will not be done properly'. The complaint to the Lord Lyons King of Arms arose after Mr Crocket noticed the club crest had an emblem which he believed was not approved. 'I think they thought I was a nuisance over that', he said, 'I have tapered off my involvement with it since then'. ... Mr Crocket's latest legal action claims the alleged defamatory remark has caused him 'serious injury and damage to feelings, standing and professional reputation'. The legal action has, however, hit a snag because he cannot find a lawyer to support his summons. Lord Clarke has refused the summons at the Court of Session on the grounds there is no prima facie case to answer. Mr Crocket plans to issue a complaint".
The article was illustrated by a photograph of the petitioner, standing inside the clubhouse, behind a window engraved with the club's name and coat of arms.
[2]At the first hearing in the present proceedings, counsel for the petitioner said that the article had been prepared with the co-operation of the petitioner. He had signed in the journalist and the photographer as visitors to the club, as his guests. He had posed for the photograph on the premises of the club. Counsel also confirmed that the petitioner had initiated various proceedings against the club, its officers and its members since becoming a member. Counsel said that the proceedings to which the article referred were the following:
(1)Proceedings in Haddington Sheriff Court in about 1991 against the then secretary of the club, Mr G A Milne. The petitioner had incurred legal fees as a result of instructing a solicitor to write to the club requesting the production of documents, and sought payment by Mr Milne of the amount of the fees.
(2)Proceedings in the Court of Session, in about 1992, in which the petitioner sought to interdict the holding of a meeting to vote on a motion to expel him from membership of the club. It appears that, following the grant of an interim order, the attempt to expel the petitioner was dropped.
(3)Proceedings for defamation against Mr W Archibald, a member of the club, in respect of remarks made by Mr Archibald during a club council meeting in 1993. The proceedings were commenced in 2000, by which time any liability had prescribed.
(4)Proceedings against the club in the Court of Session, in about June 2001, in which damages were sought for defamation. It appears that the petitioner was refused leave to proceed without the signature of an agent on the summons, in terms of Rule of Court 4.2, on the basis that the summons did not disclose a prima facie case.
[3]On the same day as the article was published, the petitioner commenced proceedings against the club in Haddington Sheriff Court. The subject-matter was the same as that of the proceedings in which leave had been refused by the Court of Session. The action was subsequently dismissed. The petitioner then appealed against its dismissal to the Sheriff Principal.
[4]On 5 October 2001 a number of members of the club wrote to the secretary, Mr T Hill, in the following terms:
"We, the undersigned members, are writing to express our frustration and deep concern regarding the recent threatened legal action by Mr Stuart Crockett (sic) against Tantallon Golf Club. We understand that this has now been dropped but you will appreciate that while still sub judice it gave rise to much anxiousness within the membership particularly when considering the possible damages being sought. The related newspaper articles and photographs of Mr Crockett taken on Club premises resulted in many members being widely questioned by persons outside the Club which in our view is not an acceptable aspect of normal Club membership.
We feel that while the above is regrettable in itself, more importantly, it has to be set against the period of many years during which Mr Crockett's continuous apparent disquiet has amongst other things resulted in him raising at least two other attempted Court Actions against Club Officers or individuals. Although these were unsuccessful the atmosphere created and the anxiety caused should not be overlooked and, in our view, were far removed from what members expect or deserve.
Our opinion is that by these actions Mr Crockett had conducted himself in a manner injurious to the character or interests of the Club which aspect is addressed in section 22.1 of the Rules of Membership. We therefore earnestly request The Council to consider taking the necessary action".
The letter was signed by more than 30 members.
[5]Following a meeting of the club council on 23 October 2001, Mr Hill wrote to the petitioner the following day:
"On the instructions of the Council of Tantallon Golf Club I have been requested to intimate the terms of a complaint about your conduct as a member of the Club raised by a group of Club members and to seek an explanation for your conduct from you in the terms of Rule 22.1 of the Club Rules of Membership. A copy of the letter of complaint is enclosed.
The Club have appointed Dr John F Peutherer and Mr John E Anderson, members of the Club Council, as representatives of the Council and you are invited to appear before them at the Club premises at 7.30pm on Wednesday 21st November 2001 to give your explanation.
The meeting will be recorded in your and the Club's interest. Please confirm in writing that you will be in attendance".
A copy of the letter dated 5 October 2001 was enclosed.
[6]The petitioner replied by letter dated 1 November 2001:
"1.Stuart Crockett, member, has the intention to attend the meeting with Messrs Peutherer and Anderson representatives of The Tantallon Golf Club Council, in the Club premises at 7.30pm on Wednesday 21st November 2001 and provide explanations in person to those concerned.
2.The round robin dated 5th October 2001 is not a complaint (the word does not appear therein)! This round robin is an expression of frustration and deep concern.
3.The round robin does not comply with the procedures to be adopted in making a complaint - Rule 27.
4.Your letter dated 24th October 2001 is against the terms of Rule 22.1 in that a written statement has not been given to the member albeit the explanations are forthcoming on receipt of the written statement of any complaint.
5.Provide the writer with copies of photographs and newspaper articles referred to in the first paragraph of the round robin dated 5th October 2001.
6.The matter is still...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- C v Advocate General for Scotland
-
Mrs. S.c. For Judicial Review Of A Decision Of The Service Personnel And Veterans Agency Of The Ministry Of Defence
...that jurisdiction, power or authority is to be exercised." Counsel for the petitioner also referred me to Crocket v Tantallon Golf Course 2005 SLT 663 where Lord Reed comments upon what had been said in West in these terms: "[37] ... Without attempting an exhaustive definition, it can be sa......
-
M v State Hospitals Board for Scotland
...[2011] 3 WLR 871; [2012] HRLR 3; [2011] UKHRR 1221; 122 BMLR 149 Clift v UK (App no 7205/07), unreported Crocket v Tantallon Golf Club 2005 SLT 663; 2005 SCLR 657 DG v Republic of IrelandHRC (2002) 35 EHRR 33 DH v Czech RepublicHRC (2008) 47 EHRR 3; 23 BHRC 526; [2008] ELR 17 Da'Bell v Nati......
-
Reclaiming Motion Charles Mccann Against The State Hospital Board For Scotland
...is underpinned by a contention that every decision made by a public authority (or indeed anybody; see eg Crocket v Tantallon Golf Club 2005 SLT 663, Lord Reed at para [30]), of whatever nature, can be challenged by a petition for judicial review to the Court of Session by an individual who ......
-
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC LAW: CHALLENGING THE PRECONCEPTIONS OF A TROUBLED TAXONOMY.
...Shearer v Betvictor Ltd [2016] CSOH 62. On the relationship between contract and judicial review, see also Crocket v Tantallon Golf Club 2005 SLT 663, 672-3 [37]--[411. One might note a potential distinction drawn in Scotland between review of decisions made by a decision-maker whose powers......