A prestigious Royal golf club once captained by King Edward VIII is facing a £300,000 court bill after it kicked out a player accused of cheating.
Rina Rohilla, an avid golfer who described the sport as ‘her whole life outside work,’ had her membership at the Royal Mid-Surrey Golf Club terminated after she was accused of fiddling her scores in a tournament.
‘Unpopular’ Ms Rohilla was said to have rubbed out pencilled-in numbers on her scorecard after a competition in September 2019 and doctored it to give herself a better result by two strokes.
But after being banned from the club she sued, claiming she was unfairly booted out because she was disliked by members of a ‘core clique’ at the club, ‘chief amongst them’ being ladies’ vice captain Beverley Mayes.
She said the disciplinary process was biased due to this dislike, with one player previously remarking that ‘her traits/mannerisms/conduct are certainly not as we would want from a member.’
After a trial at Central London County Court, Judge Andrew Holmes said there had been ‘clear bias’ against her, with a ‘clear desire to secure her expulsion’, making the disciplinary process unfair.
He ordered her reinstatement and now, following another hearing, has left the club facing lawyers’ bills totalling more than £300,000 for the case.
‘I don’t think there can be much serious doubt that the successful party in this litigation was the claimant, as opposed to the club,’ the judge said in his costs ruling.
Insolvency practitioner Rina Rohilla (front, centre) won her legal battle against the golf club which expelled her after she was accused of cheating
Royal Mid-Surrey Golf Club chairman Chris Holt outside Central London County Court
During the trial in February, the court heard insolvency practitioner Ms Rohilla had joined the club – which gained Royal status by command of King George V in 1926 – in 2003 and was devoted to golf.
The club began in 1892, but was transformed by its legendary professional, five times Open Champion JH Taylor, into two 18-hole courses across 296 acres of land next to Kew Gardens.
But her barrister, Josh Crow, told the judge that she began to find herself ‘unpopular’ with ‘a core clique’ at the club, with ladies’ vice-captain Beverley Mayes ‘chief amongst them’.
One club member complained in an email about her ‘gamesmanship, the terrible way in which she treats her opponents and how difficult it is to arrange matches with her,’ while another said ‘her traits/mannerisms/conduct are certainly not as we would want from a member,’ noting that she is ‘almost universally disliked.’
Her expulsion from the club stemmed from her participation in the Harare 125 Bowl competition in September 2019, during which she played a round with two fellow female golfers.
Her score was marked by opponent Eva Haupt and when, after the round, she went to log her score in the computer in the clubhouse, she did so using the scores on Ms Haupt’s card, which turned out to be wrong.
Instead of sixes on holes three and six, the scores had been rubbed out and replaced with fives.
Ms Rohilla recorded the fives and was immediately challenged and accused of making the alteration herself.
She steadfastly denied cheating, but the matter was passed on to the club’s Captain’s Committee and subsequently the General Management Committee (GMC), which terminated her membership.
After an investigation, the club found that she had cheated by altering the scores on the scorecard, which she then entered into the computer.
The clubhouse at the Royal Mid-Surrey. It was destroyed by fire in 2001 and rebuilt by the end of 2003
Royal Mid-Surrey Golf Club ladies’ vice captain Beverley Mayes outside Central London County Court – the court heard she was ‘chief’ amongst those looking to get Ms Rohilla expelled
But in court, her barrister Mr Crow argued that some club members had ‘smelled blood’ after the allegation and assumed her guilt, and that she was subjected to a ‘stitch-up’ to get rid of an unpopular member.
He claimed the decision-making process was ‘fundamentally flawed’ and that Ms Rohilla was not provided a ‘fair opportunity’ to defend herself as she was not given adequate notice of the case against her.
Ruling in her favour following last month’s trial, Judge Holmes said the decision to kick her out was a ‘breach of natural justice’ and ‘breach of contract.’
She had not been provided with the full conclusions of the Captains’ Committee before she went before the club’s management committee, he said.
Those conclusions included at least two pieces of evidence which counted against her, but she was not offered an opportunity to ‘respond to those allegations,’ he said.
He continued: ‘In addition, the breach of natural justice is founded upon the obvious bias shown against Ms Rohilla by those responsible for investigating the allegation and some of those who took the decision.
‘There was a clear desire to secure Ms Rohilla’s expulsion from the club because of the dislike for her felt by those involved.
‘This was evidenced in the various emails and the failure to consider the arguments that she was seeking to advance in response. The process adopted was the antithesis of fair.
‘At a very early stage, minds were made up and, at least for some, the aim was to secure the expulsion of an unpopular member.’
He said the then-club and management committee chairman Chris Holt had seen himself as ‘both prosecutor and judge’ in the disciplinary process.
‘I do have some sympathy for Mr Holt as he was under very considerable pressure from certain people within the club to ensure that Ms Rohilla was excluded from membership come what may. Ms Mayes chief amongst them.’
The judge ordered that Ms Rohilla be reinstated as a member and paid £1,000 damages as well as £1,600 for lost membership fees.
Edward VIII, pictured during a game of golf, was captain of the club while on the throne
The case returned to court this week for a decision on who should pay the lawyers’ bills for the marathon dispute, with the club arguing the trial was Ms Rohilla’s fault because it had previously offered to reinstate her.
However, Mr Crow said she had not felt able to accept the reinstatement offer as it was on condition that she didn’t tell anyone what had happened.
In arguing that she had should pay the legal bills for the case, he said the club had shown it was ‘in denial of the seriousness of its actions.’
‘Ms Rohilla gave the club every chance to avoid this trial,’ he told the judge. ‘After all that, she has obtained exactly what she sought from the beginning.’
Ruling, Judge Holmes said Ms Rohilla was the clear winner of the case, although the amount she gets back from the club to pay her lawyers would be reduced because she did not win on every issue.
Ms Rohilla had initially claimed that some of the dislike against her was as a result of unconscious racial bias, but that claim had been dropped by the end of the trial.
The judge said there had been at trial ‘no evidence to support any suggestion that anyone in the club was motivated in any way by Ms Rohilla’s race.’
‘The appropriate order is that the defendant pay 75 per cent of the claimant’s costs of the action,’ he said.
‘That is, in my view, a reasonable and fair proportion of the costs.’
The decision will mean Ms Rohilla gets 75 per cent of her costs once assessed, with about £100,000 up front.
According to court orders, the club’s own budgeted bills for the case were over £200,000.
