A DISPUTE between two members of a golf club remains unresolved after the judge threw out their damages claims yesterday.
Alan Holmes and Martin Curtis sued each other after they got into a fight in the men’s toilets at Lucan Golf Club, an incident that Judge Joseph Mathews described as like a scene from The Sopranos.
Had either man succeeded, they could have been awarded up to €38,000 in damages plus costs, but Mr Holmes and Mr Curtis must now pay their own legal costs, totalling about €80,000.
The judge said no one else had witnessed the incident between Mr Holmes, of Rathdown Drive, Terenure, Dublin, and Mr Curtis, of Brooklodge, Curryhills, Prosperous, Co Kildare, in the golf club toilets. It was simply not possible to say whether Mr Holmes or Mr Curtis was giving a true account of the events they described. There was no independent means of verifying who struck the first blow, who in truth, was the aggressor and who the victim.
The judge told barrister Conor Bowman, counsel for Mr Curtis, and Louis McEntagart for Mr Holmes, that their clients had failed to establish the validity of their claims. Anyone with common sense must regret an incident that had troubled so many for so long, the judge added.
The judge outlined the January 2003 incident in which blood had been spattered on the walls, wash-hand basin, floor, ceiling and doors of the golf club toilets.
The judge said there had been good-natured banter between Manchester United fans and supporters of “anyone but United” while a match between Manchester United and Blackburn was shown on television at the club.
This had led to offence having been taken over a €100 bet offered by Mr Curtis and refused by Mr Holmes. Mr Curtis had claimed Mr Holmes had referred to him a number of times as “only a f**king mouth.”
Mr Holmes in turn accused Mr Curtis of saying to him: “I’ll do you outside.” Having met later in the toilets Mr Holmes claimed Mr Curtis had headbutted him in the face. Mr Curtis counter-claimed that it had been Mr Holmes who attacked him and he had punched him full in the face.
“There is no corroboration at all of either man’s allegation of assault one on the other save for the word of the participants,” the judge said. “Both suffered injuries, but as to who struck the first blow, it is simply not possible to say.”
The judge said both Mr Holmes and Mr Curtis knew the real truth, but their evidence was entirely at odds with each other. Each swore the other was giving false evidence. Each blamed the other entirely for assault. Both had given very convincing testimony, but only one of them could be telling the truth.
The judge said the court had heard evidence of “overheard conversations” in the toilet and a meeting in the Lucan Spa Hotel to agree statements and get stories right, but he did not find conspiracy in the case.
Credibility was crucial and it was difficult if not impossible to measure credibility when met by assertion and counter-assertion, allegation followed by utter denial.
“The dilemma that faces me is the say-so of one man against the other . . . it is an unfortunate case dating back seven years involving members of a golf club that has a long and distinguished history,” the judge said.
There was an insufficiency of evidence to establish blame and the core issue of who struck whom first was shrouded in mystery. Neither party had proved their respective claims and he had to dismiss both with no order as to costs.