Castle v St Augustine’s Links [1922] 38 TLR 615
Public Nuisance – Golf – Reoccurrence of Nuisance – Continuous Interference
Facts
The claimant was a taxi driver who had been driving on a road near the St Augstine’s Links course when he was hit in the eye by a golf ball. The ball had been hit out of the golf course onto the road. This was a frequent occurrence because one of the holes was sited so close to the road and evidence was given that the balls were consistently leaving the course in this area, making it dangerous to road users. The claimant sued in nuisance.
Issues
Whether or not the repeated instances of golf balls leaving the course constituted a public nuisance on behalf of the golf club. Whether or not the repeated instances of the golf balls leaving the course as a result of the siting of the hole being so close to the road meant that there was a continuous interference with the rights of a class of persons such as road users in the area.
Decision/Outcome
The repeated instances of golf balls leaving the course and hitting the road were as a result of the golf clubs siting of the hole too close to the road. The fact that the balls were regularly and repeatedly struck onto the road meant that there was a consistent interference with the amenities of others using the road, and these users could be regarded as an identifiable class of individuals, meaning that the ingredients of a public nuisance were fulfilled. It was also likely in the circumstances that a court would have been willing to impose a duty of care in tort on the golf club if the claimant had decided to sue in tort. The golf club had committed a public nuisance as a result and were liable to the claimant.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Castle v St Augustine’s Links (1922) 38 TLR 615. The core legal principles described — concerning what constitutes a public nuisance, the requirement for interference with a class of persons, and the relevance of the repeated or continuous nature of the interference — remain good law. The case continues to be cited as an established authority on public nuisance in this context.
Readers should note one significant statutory development: the Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.79 and, more substantially, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 placed the offence of public nuisance on a statutory footing in England and Wales for criminal purposes (replacing the common law offence). However, this does not affect the civil law of public nuisance, which remains governed by the common law principles illustrated by this case. The Supreme Court’s decision in Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4 also reaffirmed the continued vitality of private nuisance as a tort, and did not disturb the established principles of public nuisance. The article’s summary of the case and the legal principles it stands for therefore remains accurate for the purposes for which it is presented.
