‘We will find golfers responsible’: Club’s warning after neighbours report dented car

Sunday, 5 July 2026

Avondale Club neighbours Helen and Robert Oliver say they’ve had ongoing damage to their cars from stray golf balls.

Because the club in Christchurch no longer pays for repairs, the couple must use their own insurance, leaving them with a $600 excess per claim.

Following inquiries, the club issued a notice to its 750 members stating that individual golfers - not the club - are legally liable for any damage caused by wayward shots.

Golf New Zealand's official guide states that clubs can be held liable for private nuisance or negligence in some circumstances, and notes it is 'not a defence' that a resident knowingly moved near a golf course.

It's Solving stuff Sunday! For the past 10 months, Stuff has been solving your problems via our Solving stuff initiative. Today we're running a special edition looking at four reader complaints. You can read about a woman’s lost luggage here, an Uber driver's stolen wages here and Auckland Airport's overcharging here.

In this instalment: An elderly Christchurch couple are fed up with stray golf balls from the neighbouring club damaging their cars. But who is liable? Natalie Akoorie reports.

The problem

Helen and Robert Oliver have lived near the Avondale Golf Club in Christchurch for four decades.

Even though there is a row of houses and a road between them and the golf course, they say they’ve had broken windows and dented cars from stray golf balls for many years.

But these days the club no longer pays for the repairs, so the Olivers must use their own insurance.

Currently they have three dents on two different cars that Helen claims came from errant golf balls hit across Waratah Rd.

She said they’d had about 14 balls land in their front yard in the past 12 months including one last Saturday and another the Thursday before that.

“We’ve had an actual car window broken and that’s been fixed by insurance,” Helen claimed.

“I haven’t had those dents fixed yet because our insurance excess has just gone up.

“And that’s why it’s an absolute bugger because if you’ve got a $600 excess every time you make a claim for a golf ball hit, it adds up.

“It’s dangerous as well.”

The quote to fix one of the dents last year was $832.

Helen, 71, and Robert 78, have taken to taping up their windscreens and putting foam on the cars but it’s not practical.

Helen believed the onus was on the club to prevent the situation.

“They have a duty of care to stop those golf balls hitting properties.”

What went wrong

Helen approached the club, which has about 750 members, to request a solution.

She claims the club manager told her the balls couldn’t reach her house, which was further away than other properties.

Helen said the manager had never been to visit their property, and that he asked her what the club could do.

She suggested nets but claims the manager said the council wouldn’t allow it.

Helen said she pointed out there were gaps in the perimeter trees, some of which were dying, which was contributing to the problem.

“He said he could plant a tree, and I said, ‘Well that will be a start,’ and he said, ‘It’ll take a long time to grow’.”

Helen said she felt dismissed and told the manager she’d take her claim to the Disputes Tribunal and left.

She said Robert returned to the club to raise the concerns again with a different staff member, to no avail.

What we did

Stuff rang and sent questions to Avondale Golf Course club manager Richard Sinclair last Friday.

On Saturday the club put out a notice to members, which Stuff has seen.

Under the subhead “Neighbouring properties”, it stated: “A reminder that we have a duty of care to our neighbours.

“You must do your very best to keep your ball on the course. Any damage caused by wayward shots is the responsibility of the golfer,” it said.

“You are liable as in life. If you break someone’s stuff, you are responsible for your actions.”

The notice went on to say: “We will not tolerate reckless play in any way. We will find golfers responsible.

“If you don’t think you can comply, this may not be the right golf course for you. This is a serious matter.”

On Tuesday, Sinclair replied to Stuff in an email saying the club was satisfied with its approach.

He said they had already put in place all the mitigation strategies listed in Golf New Zealand’s guidance.

These included erecting fences, planting on boundaries, installing nets, re-designing or re-situating holes or tee boxes, reshaping fairways, installing warning signs, and educating players on high-risk areas.

“It is great you have listed these as it reinforces the exact measures the club employs,” Sinclair said.

“The club, its insurer and broker (who are guided by the law) are more than happy to talk with neighbours and we would confidently say no club takes a more serious approach with golfers and education than ours.

“Golfers know they are liable for their actions and we take measures to remove golfers not exhibiting the duty of care we expect, further to the mitigating strategies in place.”

Sinclair said the club could not, however, “accept abusive behaviour and threats in our clubhouse and offices towards members and staff and on the rare occasion an accident may happen”.

“We would hope any interaction with neighbours could be done so in a reasonable manner with a common goal in mind.”

We rang and wrote back to Sinclair to ask him to clarify if nets were up on the Waratah Rd side of the course, whether liability lay with the club and not individual golfers, and whether he could elaborate on any alleged abuse.

He did not respond.

Stuff also went back to Helen who said she did not raise her voice at Sinclair or believe she was abusive.

She said if suggesting she would take a legal option open to her was a threat then she had done that.

“I’m so cross with them that I would like to take it through the Small Claims (Disputes Tribunal) because yeah, it’s just beyond a joke.”

We also went to Golf New Zealand about its online guidance for clubs but chief executive Jeff Latch was unavailable and Stuff was referred to the guide.

The guide said there were two potential sources of liability for clubs with stray golf balls; private nuisance and negligence.

“Private nuisance is an unreasonable interference with somebody else’s use or enjoyment of their land.”

Under private nuisance, physical damage was not necessary.

“It would be enough that there might be an inability to sit or use a garden for fear of being struck by a ball,” the guide said.

“The damage must be more than what an ordinary person in the claimant’s position could be reasonably expected to tolerate.

“Nuisance is most likely to arise when there is frequent, intense, and repeated interference.”

Frequency was a relevant factor, meaning the more often balls crossed the boundary, the higher the risk of nuisance.

In Canada, it was found one to two golf balls a month was not a nuisance but in Australia, three a month were.

The longer the problem persisted, the greater the risk of liability, and liability was more likely to arise when there was physical and severe damage.

“Once a club becomes aware, or ought to be aware, and fails to stop it continuing or reoccurring then it becomes liable if a complaint is made.”

The guide said the strongest defence to a claim of private nuisance was that any interference was not unreasonable.

In an Australian case, the court held that four or five broken windows over a 10 year period was merely an inconvenience, and the golf club was not liable, the guide said.

Anything that the club or facility could do to reduce frequency, duration and severity of the damage or interference was “incredibly important”.

“It is not a defence that a claimant has knowingly moved near or on a golf course. Inherent risk is not a defence.”

The main defence to negligence was either that a duty of care did not exist in the first place or that it had not been breached.

In 2022, Golf New Zealand’s then legal counsel Hana-Rae Seifert told the Mount Maunganui Golf Club there had been New Zealand cases where the courts had granted injunctions requiring golf clubs to cease operating permanently.

Seifert said at the time one Auckland course had three holes shut due to golf balls leaving the property and another was having to play one of their par 3s from an artificial practice mat over a small distance, to stop golf balls entering neighbouring property.

“We are aware of over 50 clubs currently dealing with boundary issues,” she said in the presentation.

“But we are also aware there are many more that are either dealing with it internally or have neighbours who have not yet made claims or complaints.

She said the issue was “incredibly serious”.

“We are seeing significant volumes of litigation out of Australia and the UK, and the pattern is following into New Zealand.”

Did we solve it?

No, but a day after our initial inquiries with the club it issued a reminder to players to take better care, and put them on notice.

Our reporting found conflicting views over liability for golf ball damage.

Golf NZ’s guidance was that clubs can be held liable in certain circumstances, whereasthe club’s stance was that golfers were responsible for their actions.

That leaves Helen and Robert Oliver in a position where it’s unclear how they can enforce liability if stray balls continue to damage their property.

The New Standard: If it’s unfair to you, it’s fair game for us.

Use the form below to tell us who is giving you the runaround. Or email natalie.akoorie@stuffdigital.co.nz