A Malaysian government pensioner has been awarded RM100,000 in damages after enduring nearly seven years of stray golf balls repeatedly landing on his property in Jitra, Kedah, in a case that has forced a golf resort to strengthen safety measures around neighbouring homes.
The Alor Setar High Court ruled that BDB Darulaman Golf & Resort Bhd and BDB Land Sdn Bhd were jointly and severally liable for private nuisance after finding that repeated errant golf shots created an unreasonable intrusion into the homeowner’s property.
The plaintiff, 61-year-old government pensioner Nazli Ahmad Mahyadin, moved into his bungalow in Bandar Darulaman in December 2018. His home is located close to Tee Box 7, which serves a par-four hole at the golf course.
According to court records, golf balls began entering his compound soon after he moved in. Between August 2019 and January 2026, Nazli filed 16 police reports and repeatedly complained to the golf club’s management.
The incidents allegedly caused damage to several parts of the property. Golf balls shattered a glass window, cracked roof tiles, punctured the roof of his poultry coop and struck exterior walls. Seven neighbouring residents also testified that they had experienced similar problems.
Judicial Commissioner Aimi Zaini Azhar said the evidence presented to the court was overwhelming, including police reports, photographs, WhatsApp messages, a local authority directive and testimony from eight witnesses.
The court found that the problem was not an isolated inconvenience but a persistent situation that continued for years. The judge also noted that operating a golf course next to residential properties created a foreseeable risk of off-target shots entering private yards.
The resort had already attempted to address the problem. Safety netting was installed near Tee Box 7 in December 2020, measuring about 28 feet by 80 feet. The netting was later raised and expanded in 2024 to approximately 40 feet by 122 feet.
However, the court found those measures insufficient, describing them as reactive, delayed and ineffective.
The court therefore ordered the defendants to take additional steps within 60 days. These include raising and extending the safety netting, reviewing tee-marker positions and the line of play, installing prominent warning signs and taking any other measures necessary to prevent golf balls from entering Nazli’s property.
The judgment also addressed the responsibility of BDB Land, which argued that it was merely the landlord and did not operate the golf course on a day-to-day basis.
The court nevertheless found the company liable, noting its relationship as the operator’s immediate holding company, its involvement in discussions about safety-netting upgrades and its role in developing and selling residential lots beside the golf course.
However, not every part of Nazli’s claim succeeded. The court rejected his claim of trespass because the golf balls were struck by individual golfers rather than directly propelled by the defendants or their agents.
The court also dismissed claims for special, exemplary and aggravated damages. In addition to the RM100,000 award, the defendants were ordered to pay RM20,000 in legal costs.
The case highlights a difficult balance between operating recreational facilities and protecting homes located alongside them. While golf courses are lawful businesses, the ruling makes clear that their operation can still attract legal liability when foreseeable risks repeatedly interfere with neighbouring residents’ safety and property rights.
For Nazli and other residents living beside the course, the court’s orders could mark a turning point after years of complaints. But the bigger question now is whether the new safety measures will finally stop the golf balls from crossing the boundary — or whether further disputes could emerge if the problem continues.
