A Scottish tennis club has been ordered by a court to pay the cost of an eight-year legal bill which could spiral to over #100,000.

The ruling was issued at Stonehaven Sheriff Court yesterday at the conclusion of a ground-breaking case.

The case arose between Stonehaven and District Angling Association and Stonehaven Tennis Association after the tennis club erected floodlights next to a prime fishing pool on the River Cowie in 1989.

Anglers brought a civil action against the tennis club after repeated attempts to settle out of court had failed.

More than half the sea trout hooked by anglers in the River Cowie is caught in the pool adjacent to the tennis club.

The court ruled that the lights had frightened away fish from the pool after anglers claimed they found it almost impossible to catch trout when the floodlights were on.

Yesterday's ruling means that the tennis club has to pay the cost of raising the action, plus the costs incurred by all parties during the nine days it was heard in court.

Over and above that, it has been ordered to pay a 75% uplift fee for the preparatory work done by the angling club's solicitors.

No-one from the tennis club was prepared to comment after the case but it is thought likely an appeal will be lodged.

Angling club spokesman Dave MacDonald welcomed yesterday's decision.

He said that the club's membership had seriously dwindled as a result of the dispute.

He also claimed the tennis club had been inflexible.

''Since 1991 the onus has been on us to try to get the other party to settle which we did on over 50 occasions,'' he said.

''There has always been the opportunity to settle out of court with a sensible and sharing attitude towards costs.

''We have lost over a third of our membership and this is only just beginning to pick up now.''

The tennis club has also been ordered to pay 75% of fees incurred as a result of the complex preparatory work required to bring the case.

Sir Crispen Agnew QC, for the angling club, said that proving that light could be constituted as a nuisance was a novel case in the UK.

He said the case had proved both complicated and timely with solicitors often working extra hours to meet with members of the clubs.

He said there was also considerable difficulty in finding fishing experts qualified to deal with the case.

''There has been a lot of effort put into getting all of this evidence together, a lot of evening work has been involved and technical reports and books lodged,'' he said.